A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Not sure what your “lesson” was referring to, but your old comment is exactly the definition of a strawman.
Let me remind it to you:
But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society. Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?
Nobody made any argument about making all muslims like fanatical terrorists, nobody mentioned anything about metal heads (we were talking about religion), but you wanted to use the refusal of these ridiculous made-up arguments because you couldn’t anymore defend your main thesis (I assume), which is “Except it’s not a religious dress.”.
So your “comparisons” are strawman because they have nothing to do with the other comparison term.
This said, I argued my way to every comment, you moved the goalpost 10000km now, moving from “they are not religious dresses” to “the whole topic is a strategy from the government to distract from…” (which might also be true, but it’s completely unrelated as we are already discussing of this particular subject), and now you call me names for the sake of using basic logic in my conversation. Well, this lesson is free as well, it’s called learn to fucking discuss like an adult. I am blocking you in the meanwhile because it’s now obvious that you have absolutely no argument and you argue in bad faith as well.