See also: Procatalepsis and Principle of charity
A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented. Creating the strongest form of the opponent’s argument may involve removing flawed assumptions that could be easily refuted or developing the strongest points which counter one’s own position, as “we know our belief’s real weak points”. This may lead to improvements on one’s own positions where they are incorrect or incomplete. Developing counters to these strongest arguments an opponent might bring results in producing an even stronger argument for one’s own position.[20][21] It has been advocated as a more productive strategy in political dialog that promotes real understanding and compromise instead of fueling partisanship by discussing only the weakest arguments of the opposition.[21] Others, however, have argued against steelmanning because it still changes the argument given and can result in strawmanning.[22][23][24] As a result, the steelman argument might be met with “Hey, I didn’t mean that”.[25] Others have pointed toward the frequency with which people misinterpret the beliefs of others and how said misinterpretations are condescending. Holden Karnofsky noted that he dislikes engaging with steelman arguments as they “rarely resemble his actual views”.[23][24]