Why You Should Build Strong Arguments for Ideas You Disagree With

In argument, truth is best discovered by finding the strongest arguments against your position and trying to answer them, not by finding the weakest arguments of your opponent and trying to demolish them.

The ultimate goal is to find the truth, not to win. An argument is when you are trying to decide WHO is right; a discussion is when you are trying to decide WHAT is right. The best way to argue is to engage with your opponent’s strongest points, not their weakest. You are more effective if you can summarize the best arguments of all major parties in a way that they agree with.

Steps

1. Paraphrase their point (and check to see that they agree) — So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying X. Is that right?
   • Express your opponent’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that they respond, “Yes, that’s exactly what I meant — I wish I’d said it that way.”
   • Aim to articulate their position with such clarity and fairness that they acknowledge, “You’ve captured my view better than I could myself.”
2. Strengthen their point (and ask if they agree) — Interesting. You could even take it a bit further and say X.
3. Only then, engage with the argument — That’s a compelling perspective. But I find myself disagreeing with X. What do you think?

Example

Suppose you and a friend disagree about whether cities should implement congestion pricing.

Strawman version: “So you just want to tax poor people for driving to work. You don’t care that this would hurt working families.”

Steelmanning approach: “If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that congestion pricing reduces traffic and emissions by discouraging unnecessary driving during peak hours, and the revenue can be reinvested into public transit. Is that right?”

Your friend: “Yes, exactly.”

You: “And you could even go further and say that similar models in London and Stockholm have shown measurable reductions in both congestion and pollution.”

Your friend: “Right — the evidence does support it.”

You: “I see the logic. However, I’m concerned about the disproportionate impact on low-income commuters who don’t have flexible schedules or good transit alternatives. How do you address that equity concern?”

A good exercise: write an essay that argues BOTH sides of a point we feel strongly about.

1. Your side
2. The dissenting side

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 Psychology Behind Strawmanning

Strawmanning is not merely a rhetorical trick; it is often a cognitive shortcut. When we encounter a position that threatens our worldview, our brains are wired to seek out the weakest, most caricatured version of it — the easier target.

By contrast, steelmanning is a deliberate cognitive discipline. It forces us to override these automatic defenses and engage in the uncomfortable work of truly understanding perspectives we may find threatening, illogical, or morally repugnant. This is intellectually difficult, which is precisely why it is so valuable.

The Limits of Steelmanning

Steelmanning is a tool for good-faith discourse. It assumes that your interlocutor is reasoning in good faith and that there is a shared commitment to finding truth.

Not all conversations warrant this investment. Part of intellectual maturity is knowing when a conversation is worth having and when it is not. ¹

When someone is arguing in bad faith — trolling, sealioning, engaging in whataboutism, or using rhetorical tricks to dominate rather than clarify — the appropriate response is often not to steelman their argument but to disengage.

Three Types of “Bad” Arguments