What might suggest an 'attacking a straw man' fallacy in debate?

The identification of an 'attacking a straw man' fallacy is commonly evident when a debater addresses a point that was never made by the opposition. This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or oversimplifies their opponent's argument in order to more easily refute it. Instead of engaging with the actual position or evidence presented by the opposing side, the debater constructs a distorted version of that argument, which they then attack.

For example, if one side is arguing for a nuanced view on immigration policy and the other side responds by claiming that the first side wants to open all borders entirely, this would not be an accurate representation of the argument being made. By addressing this exaggerated or fabricated point, the debater is diverting attention away from the original discussion and undermining the integrity of the debate itself. This tactic often weakens the quality of discourse, as it avoids dealing with the actual arguments presented and instead focuses on an easier target to dismantle.