No, a straw man is when you build up an idea that the presenter never argued for or backed, then attack it. — Philosophim

...which I am not doing. I am trying to explain a logical point to you about the burden of proof and null hypothesis.

I mean, that isn't the definition of straw man anyway -- a straw man necessarily includes suggesting the argument is what the other person is saying; beating up on a random thing would be irrelevant -- but even under your definition, that's not what I am doing.

No, its not irrational at all. That's how arguments work. Falsification means that there is a situation in which the claim could be false. For example, my definition of sexism is wrong. Or the elevation of gender over sex does not fit the definition of sexism. Or gender is wrong. Its absolutely falsifiable. Can you prove it to be false however? If you can't, then its true. — Philosophim

I've been puzzled as to why you aren't getting this simple point, and wondered if you were trolling...

But then I remembered that of course there are many debates now with the format of "[claim], prove me wrong!". So it is worth just pointing out that that format is almost always bad faith. It's a shift of the burden of proof, and the idea of such debates is to pander to an audience that just wants to see an opposing view get pwned.

The null hypothesis is that a claim may or may not be true. No empirical claim is true by default.