Steel Man or Straw Man

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/files/2014/01/StrawMan2.jpg The basic idea is that to straw man is to try and either intentionally misrepresent your opponent's arguments or to frame it in such a way where it's easily debunked, disproven, or dismissed or to put words in someone's mouth and then argue with those words. To try and make it appear as weak as possible before you tackle opposing it and to assume the worst interpretation. Straw men are easily burned, broken, or pushed down. http://www.iamag.co/features/jamesneale/steelman_4k%20copy.jpg Steel Man by contrast is to assume the best version of the argument in opposition to your own. And I don't mean in that condescending "I'm so obviously right that there is no way to rightly interpret this" that people so often do. Acting as though they feel pity that this person that they disagree with is intellectually bankrupt. The point of a steel man is to interpret a person's argument in a way that makes it hard to disprove or defeat. To frame it in a way that holds up to scrutiny and makes it clear that you understand or at least attempted to understand the other side. To listen and ask questions and to be sure that you are clear about just which points you are contending. I think that Steel Manning is useful for genuinely productive debate because all too often I see people jumping the gun, putting words in someone's mouth, interpretation that lends itself to pointing your opposition in the most negative light. It often times seems to me that this is done not trying to reach a compromise or conclusion, not trying to win someone over but simply trying to "win" and have their gotcha moment. I know it can sometimes be hard to give someone good faith particularly in an issue that you have strong feelings about. But if your feelings are so strong and your position so sure then that shouldn't matter. I think that this form of arguing/debating fosters a better outcome for both sides because it shows that you are capable of understanding the other side. And if you still believe in your side in spite of this then you can much more accurately describe why. More to the point you can accurately break down why you disagree with your opponent rather than having a battle of semantics.

Yes, I agree but I think both are kind of bad in there own way as they both make assumptions based on limited info. Now it's less of a dick move to play the steelman and with better intent but it still lacks logical and imperative of the subject. I think it's in some cases ok to assume the best and or worst but it's best to use data, logic, evidence and tangible meanings over the inner volatilization of thought and place it over someone whether it's positive or negative. I think it's best to ask the person what they mean when they say something or what their interpretation of the topic is. Not everyone sees blue as blue and so you need to ask them exactly what it is that they see before making too many assumptions. It's also of importance as to what and who you're talking to and what each wants from that conversation. Most people wish to debate, gotcha moment, make a smaller point on a large topic with other moving parts, and etc. All worth there time and value for each person and the conversation can turn into an ad nauseam with the two or more people trying to get their point or valued outcome across. There's also the rather shitty moral high horse problem that seems to be killing peoples brain cells. These people have no moral authority with which to make a moral argument. How they try to press forth with imperial force and the idea that they wear the ironclad of justice. The failure to see that justice and morals are but their own reverberations echoing in their cladding. The attempt to shield themselves from reality and how the universe gives zero fucks about them or their justice will not end very good for them. When the visor is lifted and they see the state of reality they will be left with nothing but ambiguity.

Isn't this more of a spur of the moment thing? I mean unless you're on broadcasted debate, aren't arguments just based on working with what's your opponent gives you Andy going from there?

Who cares? If it's in a thread, we must discuss it. If it's in 4, four times it is.