1) Do you act like other people actually SAID the better argument (or interpretation of that argument) that you can put in his mouth?
2) Do you suggest the better alternative in debates and discussions of the idea before arguing against it.
2 is certainly a good idea while all the problems come from item 1. Indeed, I would suggest that both parties do best when everyone ACTS LIKE OTHER PEOPLE SAID WHATEVER YOU JUDGE TO BE MOST LIKELY THEY ACTUALLY INTENDED TO SAY. So you don’t don’t then on misspeaking nor do you pretend they argued for some straw-man position. However, everyone benefits the most when they learn why what they actually argued wasn’t right,(especially if you offer a patched version when available).
This way people actually learn when they make erroneous arguments but the best arguments on each side are still addressed.
It seems to me there are too separate issues.
1) Do you act like other people actually SAID the better argument (or interpretation of that argument) that you can put in his mouth?
2) Do you suggest the better alternative in debates and discussions of the idea before arguing against it.
2 is certainly a good idea while all the problems come from item 1. Indeed, I would suggest that both parties do best when everyone ACTS LIKE OTHER PEOPLE SAID WHATEVER YOU JUDGE TO BE MOST LIKELY THEY ACTUALLY INTENDED TO SAY. So you don’t don’t then on misspeaking nor do you pretend they argued for some straw-man position. However, everyone benefits the most when they learn why what they actually argued wasn’t right,(especially if you offer a patched version when available).
This way people actually learn when they make erroneous arguments but the best arguments on each side are still addressed.