they themselves are making this argument. Their persistence in making this false argument causes him to coin the phrase in this statement: "they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack." Rev. William Harrison. A Description of England 1577 complained that when men had lived in houses of willow they were men of oak, and that now they lived in houses of oak they were men of willow and "a great manie altogither of straw". Etymology As a fallacy, the identification and name of straw man arguments are of relatively recent date, although Aristotle makes remarks that suggest a similar concern; Douglas N. Walton identified "the first inclusion of it we can find in a textbook as an informal fallacy" in Stuart Chase's Guides to Straight Thinking from 1956 (p. 40). By contrast, Hamblin's classic text Fallacies (1970) neither mentions it as a distinct type, nor even as a historical term. The term's origins are a matter of debate, though the usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw that is easy to knock down or destroy—such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy. A common but false etymology is that it refers to men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe to signal their willingness to be a false witness. The Online Etymology Dictionary states that the term “man of straw” can be traced back to 1620 as “an easily refuted imaginary opponent in an argument.” Steelmanning A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of "the other person's argument [(the steel man argument)], even if it's not the one they presented". Creating the strongest form of the opponent's argument may involve removing flawed assumptions that could be easily refuted or developing the strongest points which counter one's own position, as "we know our belief's real weak points". Developing counters to these strongest arguments an opponent might bring results in producing an even stronger argument for one's own position. It has been advocated as a more productive strategy in political dialog that promotes real understanding and compromise instead of fueling partisanship by discussing only the weakest arguments of the opposition. Others, however, have argued against steelmanning because it still changes the argument given and can