I just looked "steelmanning" up and the results mention Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Those would surely be too hard work as examples for beginners. I just want to unstraw the straw, preferably for people that don't convolute / package deal.

For a person who is sincere, I will strengthen their arguments. People who are sincere have often previously bought too far into the arguments they in their heart of hearts would like to argue against and I want to help them buy out of those better.

Those who aren't sincere, and those who are vicious, and those who prize ignorance, and point scorers and button pushers, and the deliberately shallow, on "all" sides, are toxic.

Most christians got gaslighted by churches which is why they are going backwards. Many people both sincere and insincere, wouldn't know what would be "to their satisfaction".

I want to tackle them on their real real basis and their real fake basis, not their fake real basis. This is how my unusually wide and deep background knowledge is of value to all that would be sincere.

I refuse to package deal and I repudiate accusations of button pushing. I refuse to grind the axe of any faction, organisation or prominent personality: I aim to disappoint all of those profoundly.

Any of many gods = job title
A lot of them are companions and for leg pulling.
Genuine demands on i actual adherents ii the general public vary infinitely both in claim and in objective effect (justifiable and not).

I hope to be posting in coming months about my amateur discoveries in logic.

Hear Hear!! A productive conversation depends on both parties taking responsibility for what they may not know and be willing to hear the other's words. Even agreeing to disagree is better than name calling.

To their satisfaction is subjective.. Maybe they don't want to admit they're wrong..

one's satisfaction is sometimes only met by their own misunderstanding.

In theory, perhaps, but the glaringly apparent missing link, in my opinion, is that any method of debate will fail in swaying an opponents view to their satisfaction if they are unwilling to adjust to the evidence and change their worldview. People seem to have lost the desire for any semblance of utilizing debate to discover correctness and replaced it with a zero sum game of winning.