[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I don’t see how my debate skills are relevant to the unwillingness of an elected Republican Whip to be critical of a sea change in the function of the United States economy which borders on Socialism.

You missed the whole point.

My statement was questioning whether you would have done any better in the same situation as Rep. Cantor did. In other words, you're criticising him severely, yet I doubt you'd have done any better, which means that I doubt that your criticism of him is either valid or fair. Which is neither avoiding the central point nor is it setting up a straw man. Instead, it's challenging the whole premise of your argument.

[WaterBoard]

You: "Right. Tell you what. Let’s see how you do on your next televised interview with a hostile interviewer."

You: "My statement was questioning whether you would have done any better in the same situation as Rep. Cantor did."

This is what a "Straw Man Argument" is for you edification:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries no evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.