“Steelmanning” is an important part of my rhetorical repertoire. It’s more commonly known cousin, strawmanning, consists of rehearsing a weak, flawed, or inaccurate version of a debate partner’s argument, and then refuting that rather than the argument your opponent is actually making. Steelmanning is the opposite: rehearsing the strongest or most accurate version of an opponent’s argument that you can muster. It’s a practice I enjoy, and I’ve gotten pretty good at it. Steelmanning allows me to see the issue as my interlocutor sees it and to evaluate her case in the form she makes it. It ensures we’re not talking past each other. It also opens up the possibility that I might be convinced she’s right on a point or two—it’s happened before.
Over the weekend, my editor Mark Sussman had an exchange about steelmanning and the Gaza War in the comments section with subscriber Josh B.C. Josh was disappointed that, in his view, I haven’t sufficiently steelmanned the other side of the debate. Though Josh criticizes me, he’s been quite civil about it, so I have no problem chiming in on the matter here.
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Glenn Loury to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
