"By saying I am making a straw man, you are saying I am talking about a point that is not relevant. So yes, that is your explicit implication.

That isn't a straw man, a straw man is representing your argument as something you never said, but you DID say that and make that point, and it was part of this same conversation so it is in no way a straw man. Unless you've changed your stance on that my reply is still valid."

A strawman is misrepresenting my argument for one that's easier to fight against. No I never made the point I claimed you used as a strawman.
You said this: "If an update fucks up, it's not a successful update and isn't called one, so "updates" that negatively impact your experience are mistakes and aren't defined under successful updates"
I already explained to you, that I never meant or even said this. I explained so here: "You pointed out that we were talking about intentions. Which is exactly why I used microtransactions as a point, because we both know they make the game worse, the game developers know that too. They still roll out that "update", they call it an update and consider it as such, but it sets the game back. So it was not a fuck up. It was intentional."
You are strawmanning my claiming my argument is "If an update fucks up, it's not a successful update and isn't called one, so "updates" that negatively impact your experience are mistakes and aren't defined under successful updates"
When what I said was that they still call it an update, despite the intentions being negative. I never said it had to "fuck up" or be not successful. In the case of the example I used, microtransactions, the intention is to make money, not to improve the game. Obviously the intention is not to outright ruin the game, but they are NOT trying to make it better, they're trying to make money. My point is the misuse of the word "Update". It is absolutely a strawman to claim I implied this: "If an update fucks up, it's not a successful update and isn't called one, so "updates" that negatively impact your experience are mistakes and aren't defined under successful updates". Because I never did, I even gave you an example and explained why that was not at all what I meant, way before you strawmanned.

"Christ this is just spiralling as it always does. I genuinely don't understand why you engage in semantics so much. There's nothing substantive there, no one learns anything. You just want to be right about an irrelevant niche topic that has nothing to do with the base of our entire conversation."

Claiming I just want to be right is a complete misjudgement of my character and I'd argue, ad hominem. If you didn't want to debate this you shouldn't state something false in the first place, this is not about being right it's about making sure I am not wrong. Because if I am wrong, I can learn from it, if I am not wrong, then we're either both right, or you're wrong, in which case you could learn something.
I see nothing wrong with where this discussion is going, neither should you https://gyazo.com/88db6616e245df7cd62160508f087d96
Considering you didn't mind last time. I'd say these two discussions are quite alike.

"All we've gotten onto is what makes something self evident, the definition of an update, and now what constitutes a straw man and what makes something irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with fixing your computer and it's beyond frustrating how often our conversations take these turns. I'm trying to help you as much as I can but you just NEED to be right about SOMETHING all the time. If it strokes your ego, sure, I'll retract me saying the purpose of windows updates is "self evident". And you can take that as a win and hold it over me if you want. I'm genuinely beyond caring now."
You do this yourself all the time, that's exactly why we get into these discussions, because we're both stubborn and we both, for whatever reason, have an attitude that push for debates. That does not mean either of us is just trying to be right. I enjoy debate because it's educational and a great brain exercise. Obviously I'd rather be right than wrong. It's a debate, we're both trying to explain why we are right and the other isn't. If I play a competitive game, my goal is to improve, doesn't matter if I win or lose, that doesn't chaneg that winning still feels better than losing.
You're a smart guy, that's exactly why I feel we can get into these close to meaningless discussions and still gain from it. Pretending I am causing these discussions is plain wrong, we both are. And I see nothing wrong with it and I don't think you've done anything to claim you had an issue with it before either.