Here is the scenario. I'm working with a different technology for programming and I present it to my co-worker who is not up-to-speed on the new technology. He replies that there may be some hypothetical person in the future who will struggle with the code therefore the benefits of the programming technology are inconsequential.
Is this a straw-man argument? I feel calling it a straw-man argument is inappropriate because people use the term straw-man too many times to describe logical flaws. Surely there is a more appropriate way to describe the invalidation of another person's opinion because of a hypothetical scenario.
If I know the flaw in his logic then I can expose the logical flaw and have a more productive outcome to the conversation.