How to Steelman an Argument

Steelmanning is the practice of taking an opposing argument and making it as strong as possible — finding its weaknesses, patching them, and presenting the improved version — before responding to it. The term contrasts with “strawmanning,” in which a weak version of the opposing argument is constructed for easy refutation.

Steelmanning is one of the most demanding disciplines in critical thinking. It is also one of the most useful, for reasons that are worth examining.

What it involves

Steelmanning requires several operations.

Identify the strongest version of the argument. What is the most defensible form of the opposing position? Not the form that’s easiest to attack — the form that an intelligent, well-informed proponent would actually defend.

Identify the weaknesses in that strongest version. Where does the argument run into trouble? Which assumptions are doing the most work? Which premises are most vulnerable to challenge?

Patch the weaknesses. If the argument relies on an assumption that’s vulnerable, can you find a stronger assumption that does the same work? If a premise is contested, can you find a different premise that supports the same conclusion?

Engage with the patched version. Only now do you ask whether you can refute the argument. If you can, your refutation is meaningful. If you can’t, you have learned something important about your own view.

Why it’s worth doing

Three reasons, in increasing order of importance.

First, it makes your arguments more persuasive. An opponent whose strongest version you have engaged with feels accurately represented. The conversation can move forward in a way that is not possible after a strawman exchange.

Second, it makes your thinking more accurate. If you can refute the steelmanned version of an opposing view, you have established something significant. If you cannot, you have discovered that your own view has more vulnerabilities than you knew.

Third, it’s the discipline of someone who wants to be right rather than to win. A debater who wants to win can succeed with strawmen. A thinker who wants to track reality cannot afford to. The steelman is the test for whether you’re in the first category or the second.

Why it’s rare

Steelmanning is exhausting. Constructing the strongest version of an opposing argument takes longer than dismissing it. It also produces results that are often unpleasant: discovering that the opposing view has merit, or that your own view has weaknesses you hadn’t noticed.

It is also socially costly in many contexts. Strawmanning rewards in-group loyalty; steelmanning often does not. If you steelman an opposing political view in front of your political tribe, you may be accused of disloyalty. This is part of what makes the practice rare and valuable.

When not to do it

Steelmanning has limits. Some arguments are not made in good faith and do not deserve the work of steelmanning. Some claims are coherent only in their weakest form and have no defensible strong form. Some debates are so asymmetric that steelmanning one side just gives the bad-faith side more material to work with.

The judgment call is reading these cases correctly. Most of the time, the opposing view has a defensible strong form, even when it is wrong. The cases where it does not are rarer than they appear in heated political contexts. Default to steelmanning, and reserve dismissal for the genuinely indefensible cases.

The practitioner who consistently applies this discipline does not always win arguments. But they tend to hold beliefs that survive examination — which, for someone who wants to track reality, is the better outcome.