I’m a big fan of the idea of “steel man” argument. However, I’ve found that this term is far less widely known than its “straw man” counterpart. I’ve heard some people just call this “arguing intelligently”.
Here are two good definitions if you’re unfamiliar with the idea. First, Wikipedia’s for the more abstract definition, and then Robin Sloan’s practical example.
A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of applying the rhetorical principle of charity through addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented. Creating the strongest form of the opponent’s argument may involve removing flawed assumptions that could be easily refuted or developing the strongest points which counter one’s own position. Developing counters to steel man arguments may produce a stronger argument for one’s own position.
There are two debaters, Alice and Bob. Alice takes the podium, makes her argument. Then Bob takes her place, but before he can present his counter-argument, he must summarize Alice’s argument to her satisfaction — a demonstration of respect and good faith. Only when Alice agrees that Bob has got it right is he permitted to proceed with his own argument — and then, when he’s finished, Alice must summarize it to his satisfaction.
The first time I saw one of these debates, it blew my mind.
Or, as Stephen R. Covey put it: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”.
Imagine if the default mode of debate was like this. A tool for persuasion, consideration, exploration, and achieving consensus (or at least clearly understanding the shape of disagreement). Instead, culturally, we’re more used to debate as a stage for name-calling, politics, distraction, point-scoring, and drama.
Next time you’re debating something, consider arguing more intelligently, and treating the other parties with that same human respect.