> In Straw Man Arguments Aikin and Casey introduce a wealth of concepts for getting to grips with the dark art of the straw man. Indeed, they propose a further notion: a fascinating inversion called the “iron man”, where one responds to a maximally strengthened form of one’s opponent’s argument and explains how even this move – which is sometimes seen as dialectical best practice – can sometimes be fallacious.

I wish they expanded on why the "iron man" (which I usually see called the steelman) can be fallacious. The only thing I can imagine is an "armored strawman" where you claim you're steelmanning but your changes to the argument actually make it weaker? Guess I'll have to buy the book...