Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
I'm been batting this idea around for a while, and thought I'd give it a try. I've found that in order to make my viewpoints stronger, it helps to think to myself on what the other side might say in order to refute the position. Thus, I'd like to try out this experiment here. Hopefully this thread will be a mix of fun and seriousness.
My intention is not to simply have everyone play devil's advocate on one discussion, as that would defeat the purpose. I think the N&D regulars know each other well enough to know who's being the devil's advocate and who isn't in this thread at any given time.
I thought I'd post this intro post before I go to bed for everyone to think about, and maybe I'll do a test run sometime tomorrow.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
When I was in 8th grade we had a mock 1776 debate about whether or not the US should continue to be a subject of England. There were three groups: Loyalists, Revolutionaries, and the "masses," and I was chosen to be one of the four Loyalists. The two groups debated the issue and the masses got to vote. It was obvious that the smartest kids in the class were chosen to be the eight debaters, and the smartest of those were picked to be the Loyalists (the devil's advocate group). It was a lot of fun, and we would've won had the "masses" not already decided to vote for the Revolutionaries out of tradition. Definitely made me think about people who are really good at arguing for the "wrong" side.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
I actually really hate playing the Devil's Advocate because I always try to side with whichever opinion/side/theory I think has the most factual and rational support. If I can't find rational arguments to support the other side, it is not very helpful for me to make up irrational ones in an attempt to understand the other side. The only thing I can understand is that it is irrational in my mind.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:38 pm Posts: 2461 Location: Austin
Green Habit wrote:
My intention is not to simply have everyone play devil's advocate on one discussion, as that would defeat the purpose.
Would it?
_________________
GrimmaceXX wrote:
PATS 38 GIANTS 10 - However I do see a chance the Pats letting it all hang out and scoring 56 or 63 points. Just realize that you will NEVER see a team like this again in your lifetime.... that is until next year...... 38-0
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am Posts: 5575 Location: Sydney, NSW
Buffalohed wrote:
If I can't find rational arguments to support the other side, it is not very helpful for me to make up irrational ones in an attempt to understand the other side.
Does the role of Devil's Advocate necessarily imply that an irrational point of view can/should be put if no rational arguments exist?
_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 18376 Location: outta space Gender: Male
I do this. I bounce back and forward between my liberal democrat friends, and my conservative republican family. It's a good for a lowly anarchist wannabe like me see the forest through the trees. so far i'm finding out that people who stick to one party completely has to be kidding themselves on some level.
_________________
thodoks wrote:
Man, they really will give anyone an internet connection these days.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
shades-go-down wrote:
Buffalohed wrote:
If I can't find rational arguments to support the other side, it is not very helpful for me to make up irrational ones in an attempt to understand the other side.
Does the role of Devil's Advocate necessarily imply that an irrational point of view can/should be put if no rational arguments exist?
It implies that you should be trying to find the arguments that the other side would use. Sometimes the very obvious argument is an irrational one. An important question is who is the audience? In many cases it may be that playing Devil's Advocate and using an irrational argument would help further your own side.
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:53 pm Posts: 21098 Location: where do you think?
Orpheus wrote:
When I was in 8th grade we had a mock 1776 debate about whether or not the US should continue to be a subject of England. There were three groups: Loyalists, Revolutionaries, and the "masses," and I was chosen to be one of the four Loyalists. The two groups debated the issue and the masses got to vote. It was obvious that the smartest kids in the class were chosen to be the eight debaters, and the smartest of those were picked to be the Loyalists (the devil's advocate group). It was a lot of fun, and we would've won had the "masses" not already decided to vote for the Revolutionaries out of tradition. Definitely made me think about people who are really good at arguing for the "wrong" side.
did you just allude that you are a genius?
_________________ it's saturday night... i have no date, a 2 liter bottle of shasta, and my all-rush mix tape. let's rock.
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:37 am Posts: 3610 Location: London, UK Gender: Female
denverapolis wrote:
Orpheus wrote:
When I was in 8th grade we had a mock 1776 debate about whether or not the US should continue to be a subject of England. There were three groups: Loyalists, Revolutionaries, and the "masses," and I was chosen to be one of the four Loyalists. The two groups debated the issue and the masses got to vote. It was obvious that the smartest kids in the class were chosen to be the eight debaters, and the smartest of those were picked to be the Loyalists (the devil's advocate group). It was a lot of fun, and we would've won had the "masses" not already decided to vote for the Revolutionaries out of tradition. Definitely made me think about people who are really good at arguing for the "wrong" side.
did you just allude that you are a genius?
he forgot to add modesty
_________________ 2009 was a great year for PJ gigs looking forward to 2010 and: Columbus, Noblesville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen, Berlin, Arras, Werchter, Lisbon, some more US (wherever is the Anniversary show/a birthday show)
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
denverapolis wrote:
Orpheus wrote:
When I was in 8th grade we had a mock 1776 debate about whether or not the US should continue to be a subject of England. There were three groups: Loyalists, Revolutionaries, and the "masses," and I was chosen to be one of the four Loyalists. The two groups debated the issue and the masses got to vote. It was obvious that the smartest kids in the class were chosen to be the eight debaters, and the smartest of those were picked to be the Loyalists (the devil's advocate group). It was a lot of fun, and we would've won had the "masses" not already decided to vote for the Revolutionaries out of tradition. Definitely made me think about people who are really good at arguing for the "wrong" side.
did you just allude that you are a genius?
I'm just being honest; I was one of the smartest kids in the class.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
