The Steelman Argument

Dear Friend,

Hope you are having a lovely weekend. I’ve spent this Sunday afternoon recovering—not from my shifts, but from my friend’s stag do in Brighton. Probably not the wisest thing to do right before my final week of on-calls in medicine (which includes three night shifts), but as they say: YOLO.

This week, I attended some teaching sessions as part of the Business School programme I’m enrolled in at Cambridge. One session on debate and argument techniques really stood out to me—and I think it’s something I’ll carry forward. So this week, I wanted to share with you the concept of the straw man vs. steel man argument.

Have you ever found yourself in a debate and realised that neither of you is actually trying to solve the issue at hand? You’re both more focused on winning the argument, as if it’s some kind of competition.

It’s incredibly frustrating.

One of the clearest signs that a conversation has descended into this kind of unproductive back-and-forth is when someone uses a straw man argument. This is when someone misrepresents or oversimplifies their opponent’s point—reducing it to its weakest form—and then proceeds to tear down that distorted version rather than addressing the real argument.

It might feel like a win, but it’s really just a hollow victory. They haven’t actually engaged with the issue—they’ve sidestepped it.

For example:
You might say, “We really need to be proactive about climate change and start seriously cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.”

And someone replies, “Oh, so you’re saying we should shut down all factories, abandon technology, and live like cavemen? Brilliant idea—sure, that’ll save the planet and destroy the economy at the same time.”

That’s a textbook straw man.

You never said anything about shutting down all factories or living like it’s the Stone Age. You were simply expressing concern about the environment and advocating for thoughtful action. But by exaggerating and distorting your position, they’ve dodged the actual point—making it much easier to attack.

Steelman argument

On the other hand, consider the steelman argument. Instead of going on the attack, you help your opponent build the strongest possible version of their argument—and then engage with that.

Here’s how it works:

Paraphrase their point (and check that they agree):
“So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying ____. Is that right?” 

Strengthen their point (and ask if they agree):
“Interesting. You could even take it a bit further and say _____.”

Only then, engage with the argument:
“That’s a compelling perspective. But I find myself disagreeing with _____. What do you think?”

The beauty of the steelman approach is that it turns the conversation into a win-win-win situation:

You might come out still holding your original view—but now it’s been tested and refined, and you may have even convinced the other person in the process. Or, you might discover that the other person was right, and your own view had flaws. That’s a genuine win—you’ve learned something new and shown that you’re open-minded. Or, you uncover a nuance that deepens your understanding, helping you sharpen and improve your position.

Most of us—regardless of our stance—are ultimately searching for the same thing: the truth. And the steelman technique is one of the best tools to help us get there.

By steelmanning someone’s argument, you’re not just nodding politely while mentally preparing your next “gotcha” line. You’re genuinely listening, working to understand, and even helping them express their position more clearly. It’s almost like collaborative problem-solving—just disguised as debate.

And here’s the beautiful irony: by strengthening your opponent’s case, you might end up strengthening your own.

Because when you eventually present your counter-argument, you’ll be responding to the best version of their view. And if your argument still holds up under that pressure, then it’s probably a strong one.

In a nutshell, steelmanning helps create a space where ideas can thrive and truth isn’t buried under misrepresentations and straw men. So next time you find yourself in a debate, try being the steel man instead of the straw man.

And let me know how it goes.

Hope you have a good week. Just one more week of on-calls and then I’m free! 

Drug of the week

Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam)

This is a benzodiazepine used to treat severe insomnia and assist with anaesthesia.

Nicknamed “roofies” or “floonies”, it is widely known for its use as a date rape drug.

The main pharmacological effects of flunitrazepam are the enhancement of GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter, at various GABA receptors.

All benzodiazepines work by enhancing the effect of GABA receptors, which, when active, allow chloride ions to enter the neuron.

Flunitrazepam, as with other benzodiazepines, can lead to drug dependence.

A Brain Teaser

Mrs Steinberg has advanced stage dementia. She has just been admitted to hospital with a stroke. The consultant wants a do not resuscitate (DNR) order put in place. Later that day Mrs Steinberg’s daughter visits and states she does not want the DNR order in place. She has lasting power of attorney and wants everything possible to be done to keep her mother alive. 

What is the most likely action to resolve this situation?

A: Tell her your consultant’s decision is final

B: Ask your consultant to have a meeting with the family to discuss with DNR order

C: Remove the DNR order 

D: Ask palliative care to assess the patient

E: Ask the patient’s other relatives what they think