This simple logical mistake could derail your argument.

One person’s modus ponens is another person’s modus tollens

The Two most common argument forms are called Modus Ponens (MP) and Modus Tollens. (MT) They both contain a conditional premise (if P then Q), but the second premise for Modus Ponens is P and for Modus Tollens it is ~Q. Unfortunately, arguments in ordinary speech usually state only the conditional premise, and leave the listener to infer the other premise. Usually this is not a problem. For example, let us suppose you say “ If this law passes, the economy will be destroyed.” Even if your listener rejects your conclusion, she will realize that you share her belief that the economy should not be destroyed, and that is why you think the law should not be passed.

Occasionally, however, someone will think that a Modus Tollens is a Modus Ponens, and interpret the conditional as an insulting strawman argument. Person A will state only the conditional of the MT with something like this form:

If you believed X, then you would have to believe absurd conclusion Y.

The complete MT includes the second premise:

If X then Y
~Y
therefore ~X.

Person A assumes that Person B will agree that Y is absurd, and thus reject X. The proper rebuttal is to reject the conditional, by showing it is possible to accept X without accepting Y…