I agree, if only because Taubes' arguments are probably more widely known by a large margin than the steelman arguments.

If your goal in reading these posts is to (possibly) come away with the best possible argument against the Taubes-esque position on nutrition, then a steelmanning is what you should desire.

If your goal in reading these posts is to help others understand why they should or shouldn't listen to Taubes' advice, than a critique of Taubes' specific arguments will likely be helpful.

Of course, this probably depends on how close Taubes' arguments are to a steelmanned version...