New Lingo: Steelmanning
Steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning, in which you misrepresent the other person’s position or argument so you can easily defeat it. Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson are masters of the straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of “the other person’s argument [(the steel man argument)], even if it’s not the one they 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, as “we know our belief’s real weak points”.
Developing counters to these strongest arguments an opponent might bring results in producing an even stronger argument for one’s own position.
Through Steelmanning people are more convinced, as you put forward arguments which address their real motivation, rather than a set of minor points.
But it isn’t about winning. It is about intellectually searching for the best solution. This is not about a zero sum game.
Chana Messinger on her blog points out how it makes you a better person:
“steelmanning makes you a better person. It makes you more charitable, forcing you to assume, at least for a moment, that the people you’re arguing with, much as you ferociously disagree with them or even dislike them, are people who might have something to teach you. It makes you more compassionate, learning to treat those you argue with as true opponents, not merely obstacles. It broadens your mind, preventing us from making easy dismissals or declaring preemptive victory, pushing us to imagine all the things that could and might be true in this beautiful, strange world of ours. And it keeps us rational, reminding us that we’re arguing against ideas, not people, and that our goal is to take down these bad ideas, not to revel in the defeat of incorrect people.”
There are also counter arguments to using a steel man argument. Some1 will argue it will inevitably lead to straw manning.