Is it a straw man if the rebuttal gets parts of what you said wrong?

I've told someone that their response is a straw man and I'm now wondering if I'm being a bit too loose with the definition of a straw man as it requires that they misrepresent what you said to make it easier to argue against, but I'm not sure that's what actually happened.

So, the discussion was about a video where one person said that if you're brought up in X country you'll be Y religion, and a second person stated that this was a genetic fallacy because it's wrong to say that the belief is wrong because of the source.

In discussing this video I pointed out that the person only made a correlation between country and religion and it doesn't qualify as a genetic fallacy as they didn't make any claim regarding the validity, and I said that "There was no claim that the belief is wrong".

Someone replied to this saying "a genetic fallacy doesn't require the condition to claim that the religion didn't exist" and my response was that this is a straw man as I didn't say anything about the religion not existing.

I now wonder if saying "that's not quite what I said" would have been enough. It's really quite different from what I said but I'm not sure that it necessarily provides something easier to argue against.

So, was it a straw man or not?

Hard to tell because even though "a genetic fallacy doesn't require the condition to claim that the religion didn't exist" makes no sense to me (or perhaps others), a strawman is about intent . It is usually pretty obvious when people intend to misrepresent one's position to make it easier to argue against, but not always. I like to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. This would be a better strategy for persuasion since calling a fallacy is generally a combative move that raises the question of one's reasoning ability and makes one more resistant to agree.

BTW, the second person who "stated that this was a genetic fallacy because it's wrong to say that the belief is wrong because of the source" committed an actual strawman.

"one person said that if you're brought up in X country you'll be Y religion"

Hasty generalization, False premise, Non-sequitur: X and Y have zero correlation. It's like saying Idaho has many Christians, therefore if you're from Idaho you're a Christian. It's too broad to be logical. It's also Ad hominem (guilt by association). But the operative flaw here is "country" if you replaced it with "family" and claimed" if you're brought up in X religious family, you're likely to be X religion - then you're approaching a better-reasoned assertion.

Overall, it is as much of a Red Herring as it is a Straw Man argument regardless of the context as its intent "ultimately leads away from the truth of the matter".

"a second person stated that this was a genetic fallacy because it's wrong to say that the belief is wrong because of the source."

This is a total Non-sequitur and irrelevant thesis. There's nothing inherent in the original claims that argue the veracity of a religion based on a specific country - merely the probability of one's religious belief conforming to nationality or ethnicity.

I'd say both respondents are swimming in a school of red herrings. Haha!

I have used this argument when talking to christians. If a baby was kidnapped from christian parents and then raised by muslim parents in a muslim community then this person when grown up would probably be muslim. I think the less you say this is certain the less fallacious it is. If I said it is absolutely certain that having muslim parents and living in a muslim community causes a person to be muslim there are some fallacies, such as unfalsifiability. If I say merely that it is MORE LIKELY that a person raised by muslims in a muslim community would me muslim then this statement is more logically defensible.

So, the discussion was about a video where one person said that if you're brought up in X country you'll be Y religion, and a second person stated that this was a genetic fallacy because it's wrong to say that the belief is wrong because of the source.

If you are brought up in X country you might be Y religion. There are countries where practically everyone is one religion. On the other hand Michael Chase Walker listed many ways in which this is fallacious (If you are brought up in X country you might be Y religion). But none of them are genetic fallacies. It doesn't make sense to apply a genetic fallacy to this line of reasoning. An example of a genetic fallacy would be like this...If a muslim said, "1+1=2". And then I said , "Don't believe anything he says because he is a muslim." Arguments are not wrong just because of their source.