It's a lot better to argue against opposing positions by steelmanning them than by strawmanning them. This can enable you to not only more effectively argue against an opposing position, but to better understand your own position, as it will call to mind many nuances that are often overlooked for the sake of simplicity. It is however also easy to think an argument isn't being strawmanned if you're using a real argument.

But the truth of the matter is, most of us make bad arguments all the time. I don't think most of the arguments that I or anyone else make on an average day would stand up to scrutiny if properly and rigorously analyzed. I think the truth is that we (many times quite understandably) simply choose to devote our brainpower to other matters. Making a good argument is hard--making a good argument compelling doubly so. Making bad but compelling arguments can often be more effective than making good ones, which further undercuts the motivation for people to make good arguments.

My point is that even arguments people are legitimately making can be selected in a way so as to strawman that position, and in fact this is the easiest way to select arguments to refute. Don't mistake sincerity for quality.

With the Democrats holding the senate #Midterms2022
And after spending some time on Mastodon, it's instructive following some heated Twitter "arguments" between different sides.
The #misrepresentations the #strawmanning, the #diversions, the unnecessary #aggression.
The #fallacies, the "my side" bias, the lack of #logicalreasoning and general #dishonesty is more obvious than ever.
Oh... and dont forget the bald arsed assertions. These usually come with, "It's true but you just don't want to see it."

#auspol #uspol #MySideBias

@pluralistic
Don't know who #CurtisStone is.

Sounds like this article is gearing up to do a bunch of #strawmanning.

If it weren't for the organic proponents we would likely be in a much worse position today. Stay well.