Steelmanning is a really interesting concept that has popped up in the last few years. It used to just be that "arguing in good faith" was what "steelmanning" is today, and strawmanning your opponent was rude. It says a lot about how we think that it is now considered special to try to figure out what your opponent in a debate actually believes so you can attack it on its merits.
> It used to just be that "arguing in good faith" was what "steelmanning" is today
Isn't steelmanning the practice of actively making your opponent's argument for them? This exercise goes beyond arguing in good faith, where you are arguing your own side, but in a way that doesn't strawman the other side.
I think of “arguing in good faith” as working to clearly communicate a position, as against working to distress, embarrass, confuse, gaslight or otherwise personally undermine your opponent/audience.
You can absolutely do it for a position you don’t hold, and it has nothing particular to do with steelmanning/strawmanning (and indeed, you can use both techniques bad faith).
Agree completely. BTW, I've seen your posts here and wondered if you happen to have gone to Swarthmore College, which students/alums refer to as 'Swat'.
Reminds me of a story about the Wright brothers, who when arguing would agree to switch sides and argue each others point to try and overcome their bias.
