That’s my writing of an old sentiment but supporting my “truth and honor” portion of my mantra. Thinkers and teachers of persuasion have expressed versions of it in different ways. A straw man argument weakens someone’s position so it is easier to attack. A steelman strengthens or clarifies their position into the best reasonable version of what they are trying to say, then responds to that.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett drew the line between truth-seeking and sophistry when he said this about some people:
“They’re in it to win, not to get at the truth.”
His concern was motive: once winning becomes more important than truth, clever argument can turn into trickery.
Dale Carnegie approached the problem from the human side:
“The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.”
His point was practical. You can win the point and still lose the person. His broader advice was to listen, respect the other viewpoint, and admit quickly when you are wrong.
Even an older public-speaking text coauthored by J. Berg Esenwein and Carnegie warned that
“no man should dare to speak in behalf of a fallacy.”
Different wording, same underlying principle: debate should serve truth, not victory at any cost.