zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living up to it lately but seeing him gunned down feels like a metaphor.

I know he liked to publicize the exchanges where he got the best of someone, and bury the others, and that he was a far, far cry from a public intellectual. Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of.

That should be something that we strive for, but I fear we'll see it less and less. Who'se going to want to go around and argue with people now?

>>loughn+Bg1
I read an account of the "debate" immediately preceding his murder, it was quips and dodges. If that's at all representative of his conduct, he actively hurt the national dialogue by convincing people that that's what a debate looks like.

>>cosmic+np1
how would you steelman his position?

>>dnissl+rs1
I've never heard of the "steelman" thought experiment

I'm familiar with the "strawman" concept that it derives from, although in my experience this is typically presented as a logical fallacy.

What is the purpose of "steelmanning" a political actor's political perspectives?

What is this supposed to achieve?

Where did you and the people responding to this comment hear about this concept? Are there articles out there making the case for "steelmanning"?

>>jennyh+1q2
It's just that a lot of people argue badly, either because of lacking skill or lacking goodwill.

That doesn't mean their arguments are necessarily wrong. It is necessary to try to reframe such badly made arguments in a way that presents the message properly in order to be able to actually compare competing ideas and find truth.

If you compare one well-crafted argument to a poorly crafted argument, the well-crafted argument would seem to come out on top even if its underlying ideas were actually wrong.

E.g. if I say "Apples are good because my grandma loved apples and you are stupid!"

And my opponent says "Apples are bad because there are other fruits that can be grown much more efficiently and feed people better"

Then my opponent would probably "win" the argument. But that doesn't mean apples are actually bad. Try to remake the argument for why apples are good in a better way, in order to fairly compare the two sides and find the truth.