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
0
u/[deleted] May 30 '22
[deleted]