Steel Man
Also known as: steelman, steelmanning
Restating the other side's argument in its strongest form before you respond to it.
Share: also:
Also described as: restating someone's argument in its strongest form, steelmanning, charitable reading, answering the best version
In plain terms
A steel man is the opposite of a straw man. Instead of swapping someone's argument for a weaker version, you build the strongest version you can and answer that.
It isn't a fallacy. It's the one entry on this site you should try to do more often. The idea is older than the name: philosophers call it the principle of charity, the habit of reading an argument in its most reasonable form before judging it. "Steel man" is the recent internet coinage, and it stuck because it explains itself.
Why it works
Beating the weakest version of a view proves very little. Anyone who holds the stronger version is unmoved, and so is anyone watching who knows it exists. A reply that survives the strongest version covers the weaker ones as well.
It also tests you. Building the best case for a view you reject is how you find out whether you understood it. Sometimes you find a point you can't answer, and that's better learned now than from your opponent.
Canonical example
A: "Schools should ban phones."
B: "Let me check I've got the strongest case for that. Phones split attention even in a pocket, teachers can't police them one student at a time, and a school-wide rule takes the pressure off any one kid to put theirs away. Is that fair?"
A: "Yes, that's it."
B: "Then here's where I disagree."
B added reasons A never stated, then checked them with A before replying. "Is that fair?" does the work. Once A agrees, B can disagree with the real argument, and neither side can claim the other misheard.
Counter-example (not a steel man)
A: "Schools should ban phones."
B: "What you really mean is that schools should teach digital literacy, and I agree."
This sounds generous, but B has replaced A's claim with a different one that B happens to like. A steel man makes the same argument stronger. It doesn't swap in a better argument of your own. Agreeing isn't the point either: you can build the best version of a view and still reject it.
The line: would the other person accept your version as theirs? If they'd say "that's not what I think," you've built a straw man with better manners.
How to do it
If you've been linked here, you're probably being asked to argue with what someone meant, not the easiest version of it. Before you reply, restate their argument in your own words, as well as you can, and ask whether you've got it right. Add the best evidence for it you know of, even if they didn't mention it. Then respond to that version. If you can't state a view in a way its holders would accept, you aren't ready to reject it yet.
Two limits. A steel man doesn't oblige you to find merit everywhere: some positions stay weak at full strength, and you can say so. And it's a tool for disagreeing honestly, not a display of fairness, so skip the announcement when a plain restatement will do.
If someone does this for you, correct anything that's off and let them make their point. "Close, but the part that matters to me is X." A fair restatement of your view is the best opening a disagreement can have.