From Wiki - A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion

Your argument was that a) All people who gamble are mugs and fools who are soon parted from their money, followed by b) betting was of no interest to you. I refuted a by saying that most vices have a financial cost and people are willing to pay for their enjoyment. That does not make them mugs and fools. No straw man there. As to b I simply pointed out that dogs were no interest to me but that did not entitle me to call dog owners mugs or fools. False equivalence, maybe but I would say simply an example. Straw man? Definitely not.

I am glad that you are done though. I have wasted enough time explaining to you why I am right :-D