Steelman before you rebut: state the other side so well they would sign it

A straw man is a weak or distorted version of an opponent's argument that is easy to knock down. Steelmanning is the opposite: restating the other side's position in its strongest, most persuasive form before you respond. The principle of charity, a long-standing rule in philosophy, asks something similar: interpret what others say in the most reasonable way.

We think public argument would improve if this became a habit. When we steelman, three things happen. We discover whether we actually understand the view we reject. Our opponents are more willing to listen, because they have been heard. And if our position survives against the best version of the other, we have a better reason to hold it.

The honest objection is that some views do not deserve a strong version, and that steelmanning can be used to dignify bad ideas. We would answer that it is a tool for understanding, not an endorsement, and that it is often the quickest way to show why a view fails.

What would change our mind: evidence that the practice makes debates longer and no more productive.

A simple test: could your opponent say "yes, that is what I mean" to your summary?