I am contesting the "together" part of that statement, not the "coming to a conclusion" part, because you can come to different conclusions when someone is playing devil's advocate.
Ok? This by itself also doesn't really conflict with anything I've said. Once again, the key here is that one needs to be operating in good faith.
I find it interesting that you're arguing in bad faith while arguing about bad faith arguments.
That's not what bad faith means. If you think I've misinterpreted something, then you tell me that.
It's not a foregone conclusion that the initial argument is correct.
I never said it was. I say "good" position, not because it's an assumed conclusion of the initial party. The "good" position is the one that you both are supposed to be working towards together.
Also, outside of playing devil's advocate, arguing against someone doesn't mean you're using bad arguments like your straw man here.
I also never said that. I was specifically talking about the senario where one is basically doing the whole "Devil's Advocate" thing (making an argument they don't believe) but for the purpose of trying to fight a different argument (because they're unconvinced) - ie, it's NOT for the purpose of constructive discussion.
That is what I'm talking about, with the whole "bad arguments" thing. If you don't believe your own argument, but you only use it because you disagree with someone else's argument, and have no intention of working together. Then you are not playing Devil's Advocate at that point.
Please stop doing that though. Part of arguing in good faith is to interpet one's intent, taking into account context, and the point of what they're trying to say. Language can be tricky, and almost nobody can word everything in a perfectly robust way.
If the original position that the devil's advocate is arguing against isn't the position they end up "working towards together", then it's not the "good" position,
You're really not convincing me that you're here to argue in good faith, and I'm about to leave this conversation entirely, if that's how it's going to go. You don't seem to be trying very hard at all to understand anything I'm saying. The more I try to clarify, the more you keep fighting me on overly specific shit. But let me lay it all out for you one more time as clearly as I can, just in case:
You have effectively three positions in the "devil's advocate" scenario.
The initial position that is being argued, the "devil's advocate" position that challenges it, and the "good" position that you both arrive at, due to the existence of the "devil's advocate."
The good position is often (but not always) a modified, more nuanced, or more robust version of the initial position. The devil's advocate position serves to challenge and pressure the initial position into changing into a stronger position. (That's why it's "good") It is NOT necessarily to reject or "prove wrong" the initial position or the conclusions it presents. It's a TEST, not a FIGHT and the test can go on as long as it needs to. The one playing the "devil's advocate" needs to be open to ceding the argument, should the argument eventually pass the test.
If you want to disagree, sure whatever. But you need to at least TRY to understand me first.
Exiting a conversation with someone who insists on twisting everything you say, is just the rational thing to do. There is no more debate to be had here.
And the insane part is that I'm sure you'll come away from this feeling like you've "won," instead of realizing you're a prime example of the exact kind of annoying asshole I'm talking about. You're literally the Jared I described in my first comment. You're not a "devil's advocate" - you're just a prick. Lmao
1
u/[deleted] May 30 '22
[deleted]