Straw Men

I've been noticing straw man fallacies in atheist circles lately. First it was the Starbucks plain red holiday cup, which was claimed to infuriate Christians but really didn't, and now it's the immigration issue.
While I support the use of fallacies as effective rhetoric, it smells bad when atheists make a racket over a non-issue. Sure, it brings the atheist community together, uniting us against "them", but it makes us into just as unthinking, emotionally-reactive demagogues as the preposterous straw man Christians we're supposedly miffed at. Surely we're better than that?
This reminds me of the controversy over the " something in the water" song. A friend of mine, who doesn't know I'm an atheist, was flabbergasted at atheists for being so petty to condemn a song. I had just read an article about how there wasn't any atheist reaction and told my friend that what she'd heard was a straw man argument. There was no controversy, yet I had to settle one. Surely a higher, cleaner level of discourse can be achieved.
But maybe not. Emotional arguments have always triumphed in religious and political debate. We're emotional animals first, rational minds second (if at all). This is why I no longer always frown on the manipulative use of rhetorical fallacies when my opinion is supported. This is politics and power, not truth-seeking. This is the will to power, fight dirty if it's effective (the end justify the dishonesty).
I wish it were a different world, one where honest discourse were rewarded, but it's not the heights of our reasonableness that is our average; it's the lower common denominator. Communication is manipulation, and truth is only as good as it is useful. Unfortunately straw men are useful, too.
But who do we want to be? Everyone wants to win fairly, but is a better world;  one less ravaged by religion's lies, worth fighting dirty for? And if religious people use these same dirty tricks of rhetoric, does that excuse our sinking to their level? I'd like to think my side is the good side, the honest side, but could I be content with just being on the triumphant side? It smells too bad, it doesn't feel right; the morals I'm stuck with don't allow me to feel right about it.
But that's my problem. My idealized picture of the world doesn't match the one I exist in, and the morals I have don't serve me well. I'd be happier if my expectations matched my really.