A straw man is when you distort someone’s argument by making it overly simplistic or extreme so it’s easier to attack. For example, saying “Christianity is just worshipping a bearded man in the sky” is a straw man. Hardly any Christian would agree with that depiction.

The opposite is a steel man where you represent your opponent’s argument as strongly and fairly as possible.

Daniel Dennett believed steelmanning was essential to good philosophical debate. In 2013, he laid out four key rules:

1. Restate your opponent’s view so clearly and fairly that they say, “I wish I’d put it that way.”

2. List where you agree.

3. Acknowledge what you’ve learned from them.

4. Only then should you critique their position.

Respect is foundational. Socrates, in Plato’s dialogues, often begins by clarifying and strengthening his opponent’s argument. Because real debate isn’t about winning—it’s about understanding, refining ideas, and growing together.

Let’s debate to build, not to destroy.

(H/T Jonny Thomson via TikTok)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

💯

These two terms creeped into regular conversation and I pretend, like every wannabe smart person, that I knew what they meant until I deduced the proper framework.

Thank you for this straightforward description I could of used along the way :)

nevent1qqsznve7d4vwqp9smt5pza79qpa9zl3krndljlyz0w530e8ze85e39gpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgpr53mr

I think every person who has matured enough is ultimately seeking truth, not ego satisfaction — which, ironically, reflects a low time preference.

Challenging your own opinions, even realizing you were wrong, is a necessary step toward a better life. It means integrating a piece of the puzzle that fits better.