Just saying 'straw man' is not an argument.

I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I was responding to a pretty obvious example and did not feel it required belaboring:

If you ask people if they don't support C51, you will get a lot of agreement, but when you parse down their stance, you will find much of the opposition is unfounded nonsense.

You created a fictitious type of person to describe your average C-51 opposer that would be easy to take down, because your fictitious opposer knows they don't suppose the bill, but when you examine their stance you find that their opposition is unfounded nonsense. If it isn't already clearly a straw man argument (it is), this is exacerbated by the fact that a great deal of quite informed opposition to C-51 voiced from all across the academic and expert spectrum. And frankly, outside of that, if you are talking about average people, most people don't know what to think about C-51 because they don't know a thing about it.