Playing Devil's Advocate

It can be helpful sometimes but it's annoying more often than not. A lot of people who go with the devil's advocate approach tend to come across as assuming the other party is dumb or hasn't considered what they're arguing already. People generally already are thinking deeper than "this is what I think". There's a definite time and place for it, but when it becomes too frequent, it comes across as antagonistic or being rude for no reason other than personal amusement.

 

I find that I generally disagree with popular opinion anyway - especially in video game discussion - so I'm not sure it counts when I do it!

...but if it does, then yes. When too many people agree on something they tend to think of it as objective fact, and that REALLY does not sit well with me...but then, that is generally because I find myself thinking something else anyway, and I dislike being summarily dismissed because of it. But this idea that majority makes right is something that, in my opinion, needs to be opposed at every opportunity. At no point do opinions become facts that cannot be questioned, or disputed, or disagreed with.

That aside, it makes a discussion more interesting, and even if you HAVE thought of a point before and dismissed it, that's no reason not to explore it with someone who may not have. Sometimes, taking an opposing view is the only way to properly explore an issue: just because the conclusion is obvious to some does not mean it is obvious to others, and as there is no "right" answer there is no reason not to consider alternate angles...unless you're not interested, and if you're not interested then why are you taking part in the conversation in the first place?

At no point should it ever be antagonistic - discussions should not be personal things, and when they are people should have more sense than to deliberately wind other people up. Or at least be more diplomatic about how they phrase things. It is quite possible to take an opposing stance without being antagonistic.

And really I think it comes down to presentation. If you're obvious about taking on that role, then yes, it looks very obnoxious. If you just make some counter arguments without being condescending, it should be fine. If it isn't and people start taking things personally, that's their problem. I see this all the time - people often think that just because someone disagrees with them, they're attacking them. That is rarely the case, at least initially.

 

I'm sure playing devil's advocate in something like a mock trial/debate could help stimulate the conversation a bit if done correctly. However, I usually act more as the mediator during arguments. In this day and age, I feel people have kind of forgotten how to debate. It's less about "Let me convince you why I think I'm right" and more about "No, you're wrong, and you should feel bad". That kind of mentality is super counterproductive to getting anywhere, and I'd rather try to hear what the parties think themselves instead of trying to shut each other down and shoving words into each other's mouth.

 

I have had to play the Devil's advocate a few times because people weren't even considering the negative impacts of their actions and or choices. They simply only saw what they wanted to see.

 

Everyone here said it well. I like playing the Devil’s advocate, usually in a polite way, in order to make sure neither side becomes too polarized in their viewpoint. The world is always better when things are at balance. As long as nobody is flat out wrong, I tend to side with the less popular opinion, while acknowledging the other side. An example of flat out wrong in this context would be saying that violent video games singlehandedly cause school shootings, and refusing to state any evidence to back up such a strong claim. If they can’t prove that their position has at least a little merit, I will never side with them.

This has, of course, played out negatively for me in some scenarios. For example, I love the Hamilton soundtrack. But I HATED it until just over a year ago because I had only heard two songs, and neither was anything worthy of praise in my view. Since it was so popular, and I didn’t have any validation for liking it, I hated it. Being the Devil’s advocate is a necessary curse in many situations, and an unnecessary one in others. It’s just a matter of discerning between the two.

 

I know very few people today who understand the right kind of debate; about convincing and understanding in equal parts; compared to fingers-in-ears shouting. I haven't had much success devil's advocating because of this: either people will think that I'm agreeing with them on an extreme position, or they'll think I'm sarcastically making fun of them for examining the other side of their position.

I was actually considering becoming a more active devil's advocate lately. My mom was encouraging me to go to church ("maybe you'll find a girlfriend there, it worked for your bother") even though she's attended twice per year for the past ten years. Church isn't my preferred environment, but perhaps a bible study? The thought crossed my mind: I do consider myself a student (study-er) and a theological scholar. But I would be a distinctly different breed of person there, and my existence would be purely as a devil's advocate participant. Bringing up extremes and opposite hoping to help people be more fulfilled in their heart's and mind's choices, whatever those may be. Even though I wouldn't be trying to change anyone else's mind, but instead wanting to help them learn the ins and outs of their own choices more fully, I really get the feeling that this would be an unwelcome presence. And so my best devil's advocating will go un advocated.