How can you differentiate between straw man and red herring fallacies?

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or distorts an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, often by exaggerating or oversimplifying it. Instead of addressing the actual points made by the opponent, the person sets up a "straw man" – a weaker or distorted version of the argument – and then proceeds to knock it down. This fallacy is misleading and undermines productive discourse because it sidesteps the real issues at hand. Effective arguments should engage with the genuine ideas presented by others, rather than constructing a distorted version for the sake of easier rebuttal. Recognizing and avoiding the straw man fallacy is crucial for fostering constructive and intellectually honest discussions.

When a friend's son was a teenager, their family had a rule that he and a partner could have sex under the family roof when both of them were 19 (legal age of majority where we live) so that both would be in a legal position to take full responsibility for any consequences. The young man's favourite response was that "telling teenagers to abstain from sexual activity doesn't work." Straw man fallacy, yes?

A red herring fallacy is a rhetorical tactic where irrelevant or misleading information is introduced to divert attention from the actual issue or argument at hand. The term "red herring" originates from the practice of using a strong-smelling fish to distract hunting dogs from the scent of their prey. In a similar manner, this fallacy aims to mislead by introducing unrelated details that may sound convincing but ultimately do not address the core point of the argument. By creating a distraction, the person employing the red herring hopes to shift focus and sway the audience away from the main issue, leading to a misdirection of thought and potentially misleading conclusions.

In an argument with an acquaintance, I said I needed to disengage because the argument wasn't going anywhere. He responded that disengaging isn't good because if you disengage while driving a train it can be so dangerous as to cost lives. Red herring, yes? Or straw man?

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or distorts an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual points made by the opposing side, the person constructs a weakened or exaggerated version of the argument—a "straw man"—and then attacks that version. Recognizing a straw man fallacy involves closely examining whether the argument being criticized accurately represents the original position. If the critique is aimed at a distorted or oversimplified version that doesn't fairly represent the opponent's views, it likely involves a straw man fallacy.

The third fallacy related to above two is Ad Hominem Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when instead of addressing the substance of an argument, someone attacks the person making the argument. It involves rejecting the argument based on irrelevant personal characteristics of the arguer. Example: Person A presents evidence supporting a particular economic policy. Person B responds by saying, "You can't trust Person A; they're not even an economist!"

Commenting on my choice to disengage from an argument by leaving the room, an acquaintance said this wasn't a scene from the TV show "Friends" and there was no need for me to be dramatic. Ad hominem? (I will concede I can be dramatic.)