Phatboy writes:
I guess that by definition, a "strawman" is an argument based on a faulty foundation.
In my example, the strawman was in the first line where I claim that the theory of evolution states that all monkeys turned into people. That is in fact false, the theory of evolution says no such thing. Therefore my argument which concludes that the theory of evolution is false because monkeys are still around is based on attacking something else that is NOT the real theory of evolution. It's attacking a strawman.
Another example:
Person A's position: Morals are subjective.
Person B's response: Person A doesn't have any morals! Therefore he/she is wrong.
This is a combination fallacy of attacking a strawman, and ad hominem or attacking the person. It is not the case that Person A is without morals, it is simply the case that this Person A doesn't believe them to be objectively true. Furthermore, whether or not Person A has morals is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Person A's actual claim.