Here is Wikipedia's description of a straw man argument:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy
based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument,
while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that
The article notes that there may be an ethical component:
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate,
particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where
a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than
critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.
This suggests that when an arguer uses a straw man, it may not be just a logical fallacy, but an ethical issue. Such issues would raise questions such as whether the arguer is not only guilty of committing a logical fallacy, but involved in, perhaps, defamation.
The OP asks the following question about the use of a straw man argument where "there is no evidence to back up claims being made and it appears that the reasoning for the argument is being made simply to make someone look bad", but "the reality is that the stated position is at least generally an accurate statement of reality":
Does this accuracy or correctness of the assertion in the argument
negate the straw man fallacy of the argument?
It would seem that if the arguer is truly making accurate claims the arguer should be able to adjust the argument to avoid a straw man. Proceeding anyway with a straw man argument only weakens the arguer's position especially if it is effectively countered by the opponent.
Attacking a straw man is like an arguer deliberately misquoting a text to make the author look bad. The arguer risks being caught doing so. This is a needless risk if the arguer's position is correct because from the opponent's position nothing need negate the straw man fallacy nor prevent that opponent from raising an objection.
So, one can conclude that the "accuracy or correctness of the assertion" will not "negate the straw-man fallacy of the argument". It will just give the opponent an opportunity to make a potentially stronger counter move.
If there is more going than a logical fallacy, that is, if there is the possibility of a defamation charge, this just increases the risk taken by the arguer who presents a straw man argument.
Wikipedia, "Straw man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man