ToolkitTalk it through
Steelmanning
Also called Steel man · Principle of charity · Rapoport's rules
Restating the other side's argument in its strongest form before you respond to it.
Purpose
Steelmanning means building the best version of the view you disagree with, then answering that version.
It’s the opposite of a straw man. The aim isn’t to be nice. If you can beat only a weak version of an argument, you haven’t beaten the argument. If you can beat the strong version, your conclusion actually holds. And if you can’t, you’ve learned something before it cost you.
When to use it
Before you rebut anything you haven’t fully understood.
When a conversation has turned into two people answering positions neither holds.
When you’re very sure you’re right. That’s when weak versions of the other side are most tempting.
When you want the other person to listen to you. People listen better after they’ve been fairly described.
Steps
1Restate their view in your own words
Put their position into words they’d accept. Keep their qualifiers, limits, and conditions.
2Check it with them
Ask if you got it right, and adjust until they say yes. Philosopher Daniel Dennett summed up this step, which comes from Anatol Rapoport: restate their position so clearly and fairly that they wish they’d put it that way themselves.
3Find the strongest reasons for it
List the best evidence and values behind their view, including reasons they didn’t mention. Ask what a smart, informed person on their side would say.
4Say what you agree with
Name the points you actually share, and anything you’ve learned. This isn’t flattery. It narrows the disagreement to where it really is.
5Respond to the strong version
Now make your case, aimed at the version you just built. If your rebuttal works only against a weaker version, drop it.
Worked example
A friend says, “Rent control is a good idea.” The straw-man reply is, “So you don’t care that it causes housing shortages?”
Steelmanned: “If I’ve got you right, your worry is that people get priced out of neighborhoods they’ve lived in for years. A sudden rent spike can force families to move, pull kids out of school, and break up communities. You see rent stabilization as a way to protect people who are already housed, even if it doesn’t fix supply. Is that fair?”
Once the friend agrees, the real conversation can start. Maybe you share the concern about displacement and disagree about whether rent control or more housing construction is the better fix. That disagreement is narrow, specific, and worth having. Each of you can now bring evidence to it instead of defending positions nobody holds.
Common mistakes
Steelmanning a view no one actually holds. The strong version still has to be their view, not one you made up.
Using it as a setup (“Let me steelman this… and here’s why it’s stupid”). People notice, and it does more damage than not trying.
Skipping the check in step 2. Your idea of their best argument may not match theirs.
Thinking a steelman means you have to agree. You can state a view at its strongest and still reject it.
Doing it only when you’re losing. The habit is most valuable when you feel sure you’re right.
Sources & further reading
- Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (W. W. Norton, 2013). The source of the popular version of Rapoport’s rules.
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859), chapter 2. The classic case for knowing the other side’s best arguments.
- Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin, “Two Forms of the Straw Man,” Argumentation 20 (2006): 345–352.
End of entry · Back to top