Straw man theory for winning arguments

Suppose you wanted to win an argument without actually refuting the opponent's position , what would you do?

Well, you could try to set up a "straw man".

To "set up a straw man" is to create a position that is easy to refute, and then attribute that position to the opponent to make him look bad.

In other words, you could depict your opponent (or his ideas) in such a caricatured way that it trivializes them and they become easier to attack/refute.

Example being...scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance - this formulation willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature accumulates changes over time up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't.

It's a tactic for debate, not a theory.

That however is an example of an Ad Hominum attack, as is often used in debating, and irrelevant personal attack made to discredit the speaker while completely avoiding the point of his statements. The attack may be correct, but is nevertheless worthless.

A straw man attack, looks at the opponents argument, and rewords it in a way that ignores it's founding reasoning and makes it look weak, then pushes over what they have made. If the opponent is clever he will be able to point out what has been ignored, but often the majority will see it as the actual argument having been toppled. It's hard to pull an example out of thin air, but googling it gave a wikipedia result.
Straw Man

Watching some prime time commentartor, promoting how our war is good. We have not been attacked since 911 . . . ah so it is alright for the president to decieve the people as it is in their best interest? So falsely promoting war with Iraq lead to the take over by the Us, not the people people of Iraq seeking their own liberty is some how transformed into formation of a Democracy? If the Iraqis are to be independent state they need to to choose as well as voice in its formation, not the US making their chooses for them.
Is that consistant with the StrawMan?