DH7 should be kept internal, at least at first. Being misinterpreted as trying to construct a straw man when you’ve been trying to do the opposite can derail a conversation. To actually believe that you’ve made a steel man, not a straw man, the person you’re arguing with would have to admit that you’ve created a stronger argument for their own position than they could.
This.
DH7 is of limited use in an adversarial debate, unless your opponent is open-minded. It could convince fence-sitters, but only if they are open-minded.
The problem with DH7 is that it’s too easy for your opponent to accuse you of a straw man. Even if that’s not true, they may be able to delude some of the audience.
Analogies are another debate tactic in this category: they are only useful towards listeners with an open-mind, otherwise, they make you open to attack be the other person rejecting your analogy.
A great time to use DH7 or analogies is against the argument of someone who isn’t present to convince a third-party. Since your opponent isn’t there, they can’t reject your attempts at charity or analogies as straw men, and you can use those tools to convince your audience that you are correct, and you’ve given those arguments the best consideration you can.
Of course, if you’re going to do this, try to make sure you are right, because if you are wrong (e.g. you misunderstood what your original opponent was saying), then they won’t be around to clarify.
EDIT: Actually, there is a way to do DH7 with your original interlocutor. You have to lead them to admitting that the steel version actually follows from their argument, and then you knock it down. E.g. you start by “are you suggesting Y?” which you think follows from their original position, X. This can make you look like you are genuinely working to understand them (which, of course, you are). Then when they take the bait, you knock it down, and they can’t complain.
And you can’t be too confrontational or accusatory, because that will tip them off that you are going to knock Y down. If they catch a hint of that, then they will never admit that Y follows from their original position X.
You need to be sure that your rebuttal applies both to the argument they have presented and to the steel man argument you have constructed (which you can spell out or not, depending on context), and ideally to any men of straw or steel others are likely to construct for themselves on hearing your opponent’s argument.
I think it bears repeating that this matters if you’re trying to win an adversarial debate, but not so much if you’re trying to learn the truth of the matter.
This.
DH7 is of limited use in an adversarial debate, unless your opponent is open-minded. It could convince fence-sitters, but only if they are open-minded.
The problem with DH7 is that it’s too easy for your opponent to accuse you of a straw man. Even if that’s not true, they may be able to delude some of the audience.
Analogies are another debate tactic in this category: they are only useful towards listeners with an open-mind, otherwise, they make you open to attack be the other person rejecting your analogy.
A great time to use DH7 or analogies is against the argument of someone who isn’t present to convince a third-party. Since your opponent isn’t there, they can’t reject your attempts at charity or analogies as straw men, and you can use those tools to convince your audience that you are correct, and you’ve given those arguments the best consideration you can.
Of course, if you’re going to do this, try to make sure you are right, because if you are wrong (e.g. you misunderstood what your original opponent was saying), then they won’t be around to clarify.
EDIT: Actually, there is a way to do DH7 with your original interlocutor. You have to lead them to admitting that the steel version actually follows from their argument, and then you knock it down. E.g. you start by “are you suggesting Y?” which you think follows from their original position, X. This can make you look like you are genuinely working to understand them (which, of course, you are). Then when they take the bait, you knock it down, and they can’t complain.
And you can’t be too confrontational or accusatory, because that will tip them off that you are going to knock Y down. If they catch a hint of that, then they will never admit that Y follows from their original position X.
You need to be sure that your rebuttal applies both to the argument they have presented and to the steel man argument you have constructed (which you can spell out or not, depending on context), and ideally to any men of straw or steel others are likely to construct for themselves on hearing your opponent’s argument.
I think it bears repeating that this matters if you’re trying to win an adversarial debate, but not so much if you’re trying to learn the truth of the matter.