Daniel Dennett's 4 rules for a good debate

What’s the point in fighting a made up monster?

Excerpt: "A straw man is when you simplify or exaggerate somebody’s argument to make it easier to target, an opponent you can blow down with adversarial flair. For example, if an atheist says that Christianity is just worshipping “some bearded man in the sky,” well, that’s a straw man, because barely any Christian would accept that representation of their religion.

Of course, if a Christian says that an atheist does not believe in anything or that life has no meaning, that is also very likely a straw man.

The problem with the straw man argument is that not only does it not actually address someone’s points, but it poisons the entire debate. It’s a bad-faith argument that sees conversation as a brawl and “truth” as only one weapon in the war to win at all costs. But there is a better way.

The opposite of a straw man is a steel man. This is where you not only represent someone’s arguments faithfully and with respect, but you do so in the best possible light. You spend a great deal of attention clarifying and double-checking what your debating partner actually means.

In my experience, if you take the time to genuinely inquire about what someone believes, you will find far greater nuance — and often far greater agreement — than you thought at the start.

For example, only the most dastardly and venal of politicians are doing it entirely for themselves.

Most politicians want to make society and the world a better place. It’s just that left- and right-wing arguments differ about how to achieve that."