there's another special case whereby you can pick a proponent of that theory who is clearly mad or hypocritical, and then tear THEM down, again without ever refuting the argument. basically, you just point out the wacky extremists with that viewpoint and make straw men out of them, rather than making up a weaker argument.

it's similar to adhominem, but i think it still qualifies as straw man because you aren't attacking the person proposing the argument, and you are still destroying something other than the argument in question.

Or when the debater creates a weaker or more flawed version of his opponent's argument in order to demolish it.

"So evolutionists say there are NO DIFFERENCES between human beings and monkeys. Well, I can refute that straight off..."

"Creationists apparently think that there is NO SUCH THING AS A FOSSIL? Au contraire..."

Straw man, as in easy to destroy.

Agreed, it's when one side of a debate (wilfully or otherwise) avoids the main issue by arguing against a point which wasn't even raised in the first place.

As I understand it, as Straw Man falacy is one whereby a proponent of one view will mis-represent his opponent's view and then dis-prove this "Straw Man".