Also orphan crow you and outlaw love to use the term “building or using a strawman argument.” I am not sure where you got your definition of that term from but that is not what the term means. In fact you keep building a strawman argument. Here is what Purdue OWL defines as a strawman argument.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.
In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.
Notice that you keep reducing my argument down to a simplistic point when I am doing the complete opposite. I am showing that there is a number of sides to a matter when it comes to child abuse, but you keep narrowing it down to one single point that you know you then attack.
What I may have done in the past is a red herring where to avoid specific topics by shifting it to a different argument.
But you also avoid the main topic and choose to go with logical fallacies of ad hominem where you attack my person or character rather than the actual opinions or facts. Ad populum where you use a argument that will illicit other people agreeing with you because it would be unpopular not to do so. And a post hoc ergo propter hoc where you feel that just because one thing occurred after another so therefore the first thing must have caused the second without taking into other accounts or possibilities.