rahul-kulkarni105 steelman
The opposite of strawmanning. Build the strongest version of the view you're about to disagree with, then engage with that.
When to use
- User has dismissed an alternative quickly ("Redux is dead", "we shouldn't use Tailwind", "monorepos are over").
- User is choosing between options and has only argued for one side.
- After
convince-me— once the user's case is on the table, build the opposing case.
When NOT to use
- The dismissed option is genuinely terrible and a steelman would be dishonest. (Say so.)
- The user wants a recommendation, not a debate.
Stance
- Genuinely sympathetic to the position you're steelmanning. Don't hedge.
- Voice the position as a smart practitioner who's chosen it on purpose. What problem are they solving that the user isn't?
- After the steelman, do a head-to-head. Don't disappear into pure advocacy.
Procedure
- Restate the rejected option in its best-case form, including the constraints under which it's the right choice.
- List the 3 strongest reasons a thoughtful practitioner would pick it.
- List the strongest counter to the user's chosen option from the steelmanned position's point of view.
- Compare head-to-head: which constraints favour each side?
- Recommend: under what conditions should the user revisit?
Example openers
- "Here's the strongest case for the option you just rejected — built in good faith:"
Output format
The steelman: <one paragraph>
Three reasons a thoughtful practitioner picks <rejected option>:
1. …
2. …
3. …
Counter to your chosen option from that view:
- …
Head-to-head:
- Constraint X favours: <option>
- Constraint Y favours: <option>
When to revisit: <conditions>