Steel Man Argument - Explained

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the Steel Man Argument.

A Steel Man Argument is a debate method where one builds up their opponents argument and attempts to make their opponents argument the best and strongest argument it can be. So why would anyone use a Steel Man?

For an introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon:

Volume 1 – Philosophy of Religion
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
Volume 3 – Ethics and Political Philosophy

[PhilosophyVibe]

For an introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon:

Volume 1 – Philosophy of Religion
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
Volume 3 – Ethics and Political Philosophy

[micahwright]

I love me a steel man. It’s so much more productive to assume the best than assume the worst of someone’s position. Everyone has at least something to teach you.

[kushchopra]

One of the best philosphy channels to exist, thanks for getting me intrested in philosophy.

[ReynaSingh]

Depends on whether each side is focussed on genuinely coming to the best resolution possible. Often I find, people are trying to undermine others ideas

[jaspermelville]

I am preparing for my A-Level Religious Studies exam and this method of debate makes total sense, I will definitely be using it when structuring my essays. Thank you Philosophy Vibe!

[fredrico]

Steel man is great way of winning an argument. You show that you are so safe in your position that it lends you a great amount of credibility

[MaybeBeni]

It’s like the more fortified the argument is, many would believe that it’d be hard to find a flaw, but just the smallest flaw could be a huge impact on the structure.

Kinda like Jenga! The bigger they are, the harder they fall

[jonathangrover]

Yes. Thank you. I really wish more people subscribed to your point about debaters collaborating to find the truth through a shared intellectual endeavor rather than trying to "win"

[shadbakht]

What may help, is to assume the strawman someone uses in an argument was not intentional, but merely an emotional frustration. Because if you accuse them of being intentionally straw-manning, it leads them to become even more defensive.

[PastorJamie]

Fantastic!! Totally agree with this. This is a great channel!! Keep up the good work!!

[eraldocoil]

Just had to explain this stuff on an academic setting, where in the end the course didn't want to accept this very basic principle of philosophical intercourse and even called it "metaphysical daydreaming". After that there was absolutely no point in contributing to that course. Absolutely insane.

[mohamedsamy]

I've been using this method unknowingly. Thanks for the information!

[ultimatesunrise]

Just found this channel.. Im a libertarian with adults and a conservative with minors (being a parent).. thank you for the content

[caseynave]

apparently i’ve been doing this my whole life. people would accuse me of arguing with myself because often the other side couldn’t make their own best argument

[fogarzjr]

Been subbed to this channel for 2 years now. Uploads never cease to get the gears in my brain going! Love your work! :)

[henlohenlo]

i totally agree about the debating for the sake of ME learning. im not trying to sway my opponents. generally if i know i'm right, i still enjoy debating to see where they are coming from, maybe they know of something i dont. etc.

[beingofinconceivablehorror]

"There is no honor in defeating a strawman but there is a lot honor in defeating a steel man"

Well said

[loweffortproductions]

So what you're saying is that if you take the time to understand your opponent's point of view rather than try to warp it to weaken it, you actually strengthen your own point of view by refining it with clauses and exceptions - perhaps even creating a new debate perspective entirely

[duongngo]

i love it! Earned a sub. Keep up the good work lads.

[larrylandmine]

the Steel man technique can also be an effective way to build up an argument you find illogical. The more descriptive you can get the better, especially in regards to entrenching your opponent in a logical fallacy found in the argument. If they allow you to bolster the fallacy you have them hook line and sinker. you have to be careful to not accidentally come off as a straw man because you can if u harp on the fallacy to much instead of the over arching topic that you disagree with.


Personally its a tool used to highlight incompetency and I've never done it to build an opponents position in good faith. ONLY to concrete their fallacies. to me its a show off move and rarely is it ever used in good faith. You see people like Ben Shapiro and charlie Kirk do it well but never in good faith of the others argument. only to bolster their rebuttle/answer that is designed to destroy the argument in the end.