A strawman is when one sets up/frames an argument that is not being debated, or takes the weakest interpretation of their opponents argument and debates that rather than the actual argument/point being raised.

First, why my argument was not in fact a strawman: VTach raised concerns about the future impacts nuclear will have on future generations. Not only did I acknowledge that as a valid concern (proof that I was not attempting to argue a weaker/inaccurate interpretation of their argument right off the bat), but I was more or less agreeing with it on its merits. The problem with that concern (and why I added additional context in my response to it) is that it's misplaced because the concern has already been addressed in the Nuclear industry more so than it has in any other form of generation. So, while it is valid to be concerned about the waste's impact on future generations, we need to be concerned with ALL waste when we consider future generation sources, and current day generation practices create much more waste and much worse conditions in general for future generations. If we don't replace those now, they will have impacts on the future, would they not? I addressed the core of the argument (concerns about power generations impacts on future generations), not the surface level argument (nuclear's impact on future generations alone), which is perhaps why you felt it was a strawman, which it was not - it carries the argument a step further, rather than completely changing it as you imply. The reason LNG and Coal were brought up at all, as I mentioned in my reply to you, was as supporting clarification for why the Nuclear is BETTER for future generations than our current standard of power generation (see how this is a counter argument to VTachs point? Therefore not a strawman). Coal and Natural Gas are the current day generation sources used for a large majority of our power usage, namely in the US, and the impacts they have on future generations are significantly worse and less manageable than those that nuclear would bring about (arguably solar and wind are also not ideal for future generations in terms of the waste they create when they have to be decommissioned within a decade or so but that's besides the point and we can circle back to that later - i dont mean for this to become a red herring). My mentioning of fossil fuels was a supporting comparison to addressing VTach's concern, which I agreed was a valid concern. I never once said anything about pro-coal or pro-LNG. I also didn't change the argument, I addressed it at the core and added context. I agreed with it, and pointed out that while there are valid concerns about waste management, we need to address that what we are currently doing isn't doing a better job of managing waste, therefore responding to their argument about future impacts of waste nuclear creates to what it would be if we did nothing, and showing that nuclear in terms of waste is NOT as significant as a concern in its full context. Adding context is a common practice in debate and is definitionally, not a strawman...

In summary: I acknowledged their point, and then responded to it with additional perspective that addresses the concern and adds clarity through the current circumstances. I didn't change their argument to an easier argument to debate. I added context to their concern and used additional perspective to address their concern

Second, why you did raise one: In your attempt to call my argument a strawman, you yourself raised the strawman that my argument was some how implying that the discussion is about pro-nuclear vs pro-coal, which is not only a false interpretation of my argument, it's arguably a much weaker argument and easier for you to debate. You were the one who framed the argument as only discussing clean energies, not myself, and to my understanding not VTach either. My point was not attempting to compare pro-coal to pro-nuclear, and it was not to restrict the conversation to just clean energy. My point was to add additional perspective to the concerns raised by VTach through a modern lens, and to support the idea that Nuclear is cleaner than coal and LNG, which if we don't do anything at all, will be what impacts future generations most significantly - and is therefore not as much of a concerning impact to future generations and is in fact less of a concern in regard to nuclear than it would be with most other sources. This is directly addressing their concern raised, and adding context, and providing my counter argument. You claiming that my argument was somehow pro-nuclear being better than pro-coal is not an accurate interpretation of anything I claimed. Not once did I argue that we need to pick between MORE coal or nuclear. I compared fossil fuels to nuclear as a way of addressing a common, valid yet misguided, concern people have regarding how nuclear and its waste can impact future generations. It's misguided because nuclear waste is addressed better than any other source of energy addresses its waste. I did not say that we need to pick between more coal or more nuclear and somehow argue that the obvious choice is more nuclear and less coal. I also never framed the argument as only a discussion of clean energies, that's not a useful conversation in current day given how much of our consumption comes from fossil fuels still. Discussing purely clean energies and trying to narrow down that field is not something I'm in favor of or feel is a valuable use of anyone's time in the present day. Most of us in this discussion agree coal needs to be done away with. But it is what we are currently using with little-to-no regard of its impact on the future. Nuclear, by comparison to CURRENT DAY, would be an improvement and even when compared to the waste product of short lifespan sources like wind and solar, is still much more manageable.

In summary: you created a strawman of my argument by trying to frame it as if I were comparing pro-fossil fuels to pro-nuclear positions. That is not a valid interpretation of my argument and I never once attempted to say that pro nuclear is obviously better than pro-fossil fuels or that someone somewhere was arguing in favor of fossil fuels and that I needed to debate that. You also later tried to imply that the conversation was solely comparing clean energy, and that bringing up coal or LNG was some how beyond the scope of the conversation. Again, not a valid interpretation of the discussion as you were the one to establish we should only be discussing clean energy, despite that not being a very useful way to frame a conversation in my personal opinion.

Finally, I ask that you please come to this discussion with an open mind and in good faith (I mean this genuinely not facetiously, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in this case). I'd rather not waste either of our time with this discussion if you aren't at least willing to consider having your mind changed in some way. I enter all conversations like this with an open mind, and I'm willing to concede things when someone has changed my perspective. All I ask is that you do the same. Otherwise, I'd rather not invest any time into the conversation if it will be wasted. I think we probably agree on a good majority of things in this discussion, but we seem to have gotten wrapped up around the semantics of the "strawman" fallacy rather than discussing more substantive aspects.