Both the explanation I gave and the definition you posted demonstrated that your understanding of a straw man is wrong. Evidently you are not capable of comprehending the clear and obvious meaning of words.
A generalization may or may not be fallacious. If it is fallacious that still does not make it a straw man argument. Maybe an example might help you understand what this term means.
Suppose someone says that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim. One might counter this by saying that McVeigh was a Christian so that proves that not all terrorists are Muslim so you are wrong.
You see, the second point is a straw man because it spins the real issue (the statistical fact regarding terrorists) into a much weaker argument. The original statement was that MOST terrorists are Muslim. The person applying the straw man spun it into "ALL Muslims are terrorists" and then easily defeated the weaker claim with a single exception.
Another straw man might be to say that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists and you are therefore wrong. Again, this spins the other person's argument - he never said all Muslims were terrorists, just that most terrorists are Muslim. One point is strong, the other weak. A straw man is an attempt to distort the other persons point in order to make it a weaker argument that is more easily knocked down.
