Steelmanning: Anticipating Your Opponent's Best Case

You’ve drafted your position. The legal theory is solid. The facts support you. You file feeling confident.

Then their response arrives. And they’ve reframed everything. The facts you thought were clearly in your favor now look ambiguous. The argument you dismissed as weak is actually compelling. They found the logical gap in your reasoning you didn’t see.

Now you’re scrambling to respond instead of controlling the narrative.

Here’s what happened: You never actually tested your position against their best argument. You tested it against the weak version you imagined they’d make.

Most lawyers do this. We convince ourselves our case is strong by arguing against strawman versions of the opposition. Then the real opposition shows up with something better.

The Concept: Steelmanning

The term “steelman” is the opposite of “strawman.”

A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone’s position to make it easier to attack. You create a weak, distorted version of their argument, defeat that, and claim victory.

A steelman argument is when you construct the strongest possible version of the opposing position—even stronger than they might make themselves. You find their best case, articulate it more clearly than they would, and then you test your position against that.

The name comes from the image: instead of building a flimsy straw figure to knock down, you’re building a steel one. Much harder to defeat. But if your position holds up against the steel version, you know it actually works.

The insight most lawyers miss: You don’t need to wait for their brief to know what their best argument looks like.

You can generate it yourself. Right now. Before you’ve committed to your strategy. While you still have time to adjust.

That’s what this prompt does. It forces AI to make their case as strong as possible—so you can see where you’re actually vulnerable before they exploit it.

The Prompt

Concrete Example

Scenario: You represent a buyer in a commercial supply dispute. Your client ordered custom machinery for €600k. It was delivered 3 months late. Buyer refused final payment of €180k, claiming the delay caused substantial losses. Seller is now suing for payment.

Your theory: The delay was a material breach. The contract specified a delivery date. Your client’s project launch depended on timely delivery. The delay caused quantifiable damages. Buyer is entitled to withhold payment and potentially counterclaim.

You think their argument will be: “We were only a bit late, the machinery works fine, pay us.”

You run the steelman prompt. Here’s what you get:

---

REFRAME THE FACTS:

“Seller delivered custom machinery built exactly to buyer’s specifications. Yes, there was a delay—caused by a supplier bankruptcy that was unforeseeable and outside seller’s control. Seller immediately notified buyer, provided regular updates, and delivered as soon as possible.

Buyer received the machinery, inspected it, accepted delivery, installed it, and began using it in production. Then, months later, buyer suddenly refused payment—not because anything was wrong with the machinery, but because they want to use payment as leverage to extract damages they claim but haven’t proven.

If the delay was truly catastrophic, why did buyer accept delivery? Why install it? Why start using it in production? Buyer’s actions show the delay was manageable. Their current position is opportunistic.”

ATTACK YOUR REASONING:

Your “material breach” theory has three problems:

1. The contract doesn’t say time is of the essence. It has a delivery date, but no clause stating delays justify withholding payment or terminating the contract. If timing was critical, buyer should have negotiated that protection.

2. Buyer’s behavior contradicts their claim. They accepted delivery. Installed the machinery. Started production. Under basic contract principles, accepting performance despite delay means you can’t later claim the delay was material. Their remedy is damages, not refusing to pay for goods they accepted and are using.

3. Your “quantifiable damages” are speculation. Buyer claims lost revenue from delayed project launch. But can they prove:

   • Specific lost contracts or customers?
   • That the delay (not other factors) caused the project delay?
   • That they attempted to mitigate (find alternative equipment, adjust timelines)?

Without proof, this is just a negotiating tactic disguised as a legal claim.

ALTERNATIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK:

This isn’t about material breach. It’s about proportionality and good faith.

Even assuming buyer has some damages from the delay, the remedy is a damages claim—not withholding the full purchase price for accepted and functioning goods.

Buyer is essentially saying: “We’ll hold your €180k hostage until you pay us an amount we haven’t proven we’re owed.” That’s not how contract remedies work. You can’t self-help your way to damages by refusing contractual obligations.

The proper sequence is: (1) Pay for what you received, (2) Prove your damages, (3) Recover compensation. Buyer skipped steps 1 and 2.

WHAT YOU’RE OVERLOOKING:

You’re assuming “specified delivery date = time is of the essence” automatically. It doesn’t. Courts distinguish between:

• Timing as a contractual preference (default)
• Timing as a material term (requires explicit agreement)

Your contract has the first, not the second.

You’re also overlooking that buyer continued the relationship after the delay. No termination notice. No formal breach claim at the time. They only raised this after using the machinery for months. That timeline undermines your “material breach” narrative.

THEIR BEST OUTCOME:

“Buyer accepted delivery of functional machinery and began using it in production. Under established contract principles, accepting performance—even delayed performance—precludes later claims that the delay was material enough to justify non-payment. Buyer’s remedy, if any, is a separate claim for proven damages. Buyer cannot withhold the purchase price for accepted goods while claiming unsubstantiated losses. The court orders payment of €180k. Buyer may pursue damages separately if they can prove causation and quantum.”

---

You read this and realize:

Your “material breach” argument is much weaker than you thought. The contract doesn’t support it. Your client’s behavior undermines it. You were arguing against “they were only a bit late” when their real argument is “you accepted it and used it, so pay for it.”

You still have a case—but it’s different now. You need to:

1. Acknowledge payment obligation exists (fighting this makes you look bad faith)
2. Pivot to proven damages (can you actually quantify losses from the delay?)
3. Negotiate offset (we’ll pay €180k minus €X in proven damages)

You adjust your strategy before filing. You’re no longer caught off-guard when their brief makes exactly these points. You anticipated it. You’re already positioned to respond.

When to Use This

Use steelmanning when:

• Before filing any brief or formal position - Especially in disputes
• Before responding to their arguments - To see what they’ll actually say, not what you hope they’ll say
• During strategy sessions - To test whether your case holds up
• When you feel very confident - Confidence often means you’re arguing against a weak version
• Before settlement negotiations - To understand your real leverage, not imagined leverage

The earlier you do this, the better. Steelmanning is most valuable when you still have time to adjust your approach.

Why This Works

You already know you’re supposed to think like opposing counsel. But actually doing it is hard. You’re invested in your client’s case. Your brain resists seeing genuine strength in the other side’s position.

AI has no client to please. When you ask it to build their strongest argument, it actually does it. Not the version that makes you feel good—the version that would actually work.

This isn’t about being defeatist. It’s about intellectual honesty. If your position can’t survive their best argument, you need to know that before you file it—not after.

The best lawyers already think this way. They pressure-test their own theories. They assume opposing counsel is smart. They look for the gaps in their reasoning before the other side finds them.

This prompt just makes that process systematic instead of occasional.

---

We’re building Mino for lawyers who want AI that challenges their thinking, not just confirms it. If you’re tired of tools that only tell you what you want to hear, join the founding members.

I need you to construct the strongest possible counterargument to my legal position. Your job is to make the opposing side's case as compelling and logically sound as possible.

Here's my position:

[DESCRIBE YOUR CASE - include your legal theory, the key facts you're relying on, and your understanding of what the other side will likely argue]

Now build the STRONGEST version of their counterargument:

1. REFRAME THE FACTS: How would they tell the story to make their position look reasonable? What facts do they emphasize? What do they minimize? What's their narrative?

2. ATTACK MY REASONING: Where are the logical weaknesses in my position? Where am I making assumptions? Where does my theory break down? Be specific about the gaps.

3. ALTERNATIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: What's a different way to analyze this situation that favors them? What principles or reasoning support their view?

4. WHAT I'M OVERLOOKING: What obvious counterarguments exist that I might be blind to because I'm too close to my own case?

5. THEIR BEST OUTCOME: If they won, what would the reasoning look like? Write the core logic of why their position prevails.

Do not make their argument weak to make me feel better. I need to know if my position holds up against their strongest case, not their weakest.