Devil's Advocate

[Bob S.]

I like to believe that you cannot fully understand your position, the opposing position, or the entirety of an issue unless you can play Devil's Advoacte and argue the opposing position to what you believe.

I have done that (internally or externally) with a lot of the social issues of today and feel that playing D-A, especially debating with myself, makes me more of a centrist.

I challenge anyone here at CFI to deliver a devil's advoate position of a social issue relevant to today. I will also do so at a later time (if not tomorrow, then this weekend).

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

I like to believe that you cannot fully understand your position, the opposing position, or the entirety of an issue unless you can play Devil's Advoacte and argue the opposing position to what you believe.

I have done that (internally or externally) with a lot of the social issues of today and feel that playing D-A, especially debating with myself, makes me more of a centrist.

I challenge anyone here at CFI to deliver a devil's advoate position of a social issue relevant to today. I will also do so at a later time (if not tomorrow, then this weekend).

Bob S.

[Old Hippie]

quote:

Originally posted by Bob S.:
I like to believe that you cannot fully understand your position, the opposing position, or the entirety of an issue unless you can play Devil's Advoacte and argue the opposing position to what you believe.

I have done that (internally or externally) with a lot of the social issues of today and feel that playing D-A, especially debating with myself, makes me more of a centrist.

I challenge anyone here at CFI to deliver a devil's advoate position of a social issue relevant to today. I will also do so at a later time (if not tomorrow, then this weekend).

Bob S.

Well, Bob, if your views are so lightly held that you can freely argue the opposite, perhaps those views are not true convictions. If the position you claim to hold is one you actually BELIEVE in, how can you reasonably (or convicingly) present the opposing view?
. That may be the problem with today's society: people are willing to submit to the suggestion that there are two sides to a belief. In reality, of course, there is only one side, the correct one. And that is my side.
. SO, if you claim to be able to argue against yourself, you must already know you are wrong.


This post is a bit later than the weekend of yours, but still....

[hm0504]

quote:

Originally posted by Bob S.:
I like to believe that you cannot fully understand your position, the opposing position, or the entirety of an issue unless you can play Devil's Advoacte and argue the opposing position to what you believe.
...

I guess the opposing position to the above position is...
that one CAN fully understand an opposing position, and the entirety of an issue WITHOUT having to play Devil's Advocate and argue the opposing position.

Bob. S., I dare you to play Devil's Advocate and argue for the position I have just put forth!

[David77]

I think that it is generally a good idea to try to see or consider all sides of an issue before coming to your conclusion.

[nimrod]

I enjoy playing the Devils Advocate. It helps me to see all sides of a issue, or to show others that it is not always black and white. I may not always believe in what I am saying, but it helps to be open to other possibilies. There is an inevitible side effect though, sometimes I sound wishy-washy and trying to placate to either side of an issue.

[Bob S.]

Thanks for resurrecting this. I forgot about it and then I didn't complete my own assignment--coming up with a topic that I wanted to argue the opposition. I promise to eventually get to it.

Hippie:"That may be the problem with today's society: people are willing to submit to the suggestion that there are two sides to a belief. In reality, of course, there is only one side, the correct one. And that is my side."

Hippie, there are always at least two sides to any issue. Neither one is necessarily right or wrong. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. And the problems in society (and the world in general) are not that people want to concede that there are two sides, rather that there is only one correct side--their side.

If people could do more understanding of the complexity of the issues and undertand everyone else's position, we would not have so many problems.

Hippie:"SO, if you claim to be able to argue against yourself, you must already know you are wrong."

Or that I am right. Or that both sides have equal arguments for and against.

Bob S.

[LamontCranston]

quote:

If the position you claim to hold is one you actually BELIEVE in, how can you reasonably (or convicingly) present the opposing view?

I was a Toastmaster (public speaking club) for several years at an old job. Every year we held a debate.

The group voted for a topic and the challenge was to join the side opposite your basic belief.

When you are forced to research and argue the "other side" we found we discovered facts otherwise unkown.

Also, a belief you hold may be long-standing but based on something you were told and relatively un-examined.

Examine it by contrast and you may find the facts do not support what you were told.

It was a fun, professional, non-threatening, lunch hour environment. Quite interesting.

Oh.. and I point out that politicians and elected officials regularly argue things they don't believe in. It's a skill and part of the job.

[nimrod]

quote:

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Thanks for resurrecting this. I forgot about it and then I didn't complete my own assignment--coming up with a topic that I wanted to argue the opposition. I promise to eventually get to it.

Hippie:"That may be the problem with today's society: people are willing to submit to the suggestion that there are two sides to a belief. In reality, of course, there is only one side, the correct one. And that is my side."

Hippie, there are always at least two sides to any issue. Neither one is necessarily right or wrong. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. And the problems in society (and the world in general) are not that people want to concede that there are two sides, rather that there is only one correct side--their side.

If people could do more understanding of the complexity of the issues and undertand everyone else's position, we would not have so many problems.

Hippie:"SO, if you claim to be able to argue against yourself, you must already know you are wrong."

Or that I am right. Or that both sides have equal arguments for and against.

Bob S.

You think that Hippie was playing the Devils advocate with his statement? Just trying to gey a rise out of someone?

[Bob S.]

nimrod:"You think that Hippie was playing the Devils advocate with his statement? Just trying to gey a rise out of someone?"

You know. I never thought about that

Now for my contribution:

Evolution vs. Creationism

Evolution has never been a proven, or provable theory in science. It exists simply because the scientists feel it best explains the sequence of events that lead to the existene of humans, a sequence that esists because of the theory.

All theories, however, must be constantly scrutinized and re-evaluated all the time. For the evolutionary scientists, however, the re-evaluation merely makes them make trivial changes to their theory. They never question their ultimate conclusion, however.

This would not be so dangerous if not for the fact that this theory is being taught in schools as the only explanation for the existence of man. The schools and scientists totally discount the role of G*d in mankind's existence. I agree that there is no scientific test that can prove G*d's role in the mankind's existence but neither is there for evolution.

If scientists and schools truly wanted to get to the truth, they would not completely dismiss an entire theory simply because it suggests a higher power was involved. In this instance, the separation of church and state is allowing the state to completely ignore a basic and global theory that life on Earth was divinely inspired.

Bob S.

[Nude in the North]

There are only 3 things I can't tolerate.

Devils Advocates, What if's, and Intolerance.

Steve

[LamontCranston]

OK Bob.. I've had this discussion with others on a different forum. Before I delve in, may I ask you a favor?

Part of the problem with A vs. B arguments is the language used, and it's clear to me from your explanation which side you fall on.

I challenge you to rewrite or edit your posit so that it's centrist and uncomitted to either A or B. For example, take out the words: never, trivial, only, completely, entire, and truly.

Plus, the phrases "scentists feel" and "scientists... truly want to get to the truth" are problematic. Scientists don't feel, they examine, test and evaluate. In fact, any scientific field of study IS the pursuit of truth.

And before I go I have to ask:
You spell out devil and even capitalize the word as a proper noun but not God, why is that?

Mike S

p.s. Not a slam or even criticism, I'm just testing the water before I wade in with an opinion. If you're opinion on this subject is like those of usmc1, nacktman, or Jon on the Iraq war, then I'll pass.

p.p.s. I learned several things from an evolutionist and even the Church on this subject. It's not as A vs B as I thought. I'd like to share.

[LamontCranston]

quote:

I can't tolerate... Intolerance.

Good one, Steve!

What if everyone were nude? Would there be anti-clothes ordinances and clothing-only campgrounds to visit?

[usmc1]

quote:

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
OK Bob.. I've had this discussion with others on a different forum. Before I delve in, may I ask you a favor?

Part of the problem with A vs. B arguments is the language used, and it's clear to me from your explanation which side you fall on.

I challenge you to rewrite or edit your posit so that it's centrist and uncomitted to either A or B. For example, take out the words: never, trivial, only, completely, entire, and truly.

Plus, the phrases "scentists feel" and "scientists... truly want to get to the truth" are problematic. Scientists don't feel, they examine, test and evaluate. In fact, any scientific field of study IS the pursuit of truth.

And before I go I have to ask:
You spell out devil and even capitalize the word as a proper noun but not God, why is that?

Mike S

p.s. Not a slam or even criticism, I'm just testing the water before I wade in with an opinion. If you're opinion on this subject is like those of usmc1, nacktman, or Jon on the Iraq war, then I'll pass.

p.p.s. I learned several things from an evolutionist and even the Church on this subject. It's not as A vs B as I thought. I'd like to share.

Lamont, those chuup, chuup, chuuup, noises you're hearing at night--well, it's just the swish of the blades from the black helicopters watching you. Or maybe the wings of Old Scratch, Slewfoot his ownself!

BOOOO!

[LamontCranston]

Nevermind Bob.
If this idiot is going to pop in and shout down whatever is said, then I'm not interested in playing. I'm not giving him/her an audience.

This forum isn't the place for informed debate.

I'll stick to the adventure in nudism threads. It's more fun anyway..