A good read, thanks for the link.

I think I'd disagree with his take on steelmanning though. He seems to think that in steelmanning, you need to assume the same assumptions as your opponent, thus precluding alternate possibilities.

But, in steelmanning, you need to ask the opposing side if your understanding of their point is correct, and also list out all the assumptions made along the way to get to that claim.

Once the assumptions are spoken out loud, it's easy to identify and focus on the first branch of disagreement. It saves a lot of time. That's the true power of steelmanning a hostile opponent.