That's not what a strawman argument is.

A strawman argument is when you restate someone's argument in a way that's stupid, then you refute the stupid argument. Or in the extreme case, argue against an argument that the person never made. In both cases, you're not arguing against the other person, you're arguing against a straw man that you made up. Hence the name.

It's still a logical fallacy, just a different one. Fallacy of relative privation applies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Fallacy_of_r...

NIT: I think you mean red herring. A red herring fallacy is misdirection with irrelevant information. A straw man is a type of red herring which specifically involves misrepresenting the original argument.

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-betwee...

A strawman is when you misrepresent an opposing position or argument to make it appear weaker than it is, and argue against the weak version. Fighting an opponent made of straw which was created in order to be defeated.

(Similarly, a weakman is when you seek out someone who genuinely holds a weak (easier to argue against) version of the position you wish to push against, argue against this weak version, and act as if you have argued against the stronger versions.

Neither of these appear to be what has been done here.