There was not one "point" made, but three salient propositions offered:
1) (implied) The straw man fallacy is a formal fallacy.
2) "all formal fallacies are based on a common cognitive bias/error."
3)"it's unlikely for anyone to commit a strawman fallacy without following the formula I described, even though it might be theoretically possible."
1 is obviously false; 2 is vague and unclear; 3 fares little better than 2.
I simply ignored 2 and 3 because, not only were they digressive and irrelevant to the discussion, but, frankly, I couldn't be bothered to address them and the misunderstandings that inevitably lay beneath them (e.g. ignorance of what constitutes a formal fallacy vis a vis an informal fallacy, what a "straw man" fallacy is, conventionally understood). 1, however, whilst irrelevant to the discussion, was quick and painless to correct, and thus I did so.
Moreover, you began your post with a juvenile "fuck you" and emoticon and then made a glaring error. This, combined with your lacklustre grasp of English and general puerility, as well as my suspicion that you are not especially intelligent, was sufficient for my above reticence.
If you want to be taken seriously by interlocutors who aren't easily impressed, use better English, avoid profanity, and gain more than a slight knowledge of the subject about which you are talking. If not, you are welcome to continue being a dolt.