Let's play Devil's Advocate!

aneeshm · Nov 11, 2006

I've had an idea to vary the monotony around here a bit. Let's make a series of threads on each of the evergreen topics around here, with the rule that each debater had to take exactly the opposite of the position he normally takes. In such a thread, for example, I will defend the "right" of Muslims to have multiple wives, Perfection will defend Creationism, MobBoss will become an atheist, and so on.

This will provide us an important perspective into how the other side thinks, because for once, our instinctive response will be to defend "the other".

This initial thread is meant to decide that topics should be made into DA threads, and what the rules are.

The most common ones, which just have to be included:

Topics:

01) Abortion (Link)
02) Stem Cell Research
03) Homosexuality and gay rights
04) Israel-Palestine conflict
05) Creationism vs. Evolution (Link)
06) Atheism vs. Theism (Link)
07) Democrat vs. Republican
08) Girl Problems () (Link)
09) George W. Bush: Angel or Devil
10) Terrorism (this is a tough one)
11) Capitalism vs. Communism (Link)
12) The Welfare State: Good or Bad

Additional topics:

13) Christianity and Islam: How similar/different?
14) Death Penalty: Yay or Nay?
15) Iraq: Sensible war or Blunder of massive proportions? (Link)
15) Racism: Unfounded blind prejudice or misunderstood but sound ideology/science?
16) Nazism and anti-Semitism
17) Monotheism vs. Pantheism vs. Polytheism

Topical topics: (these are the ones whose relevance is only temporary, and are thus not numbered using the normal scheme)

1) (US Election 2008) Hillary Clinton (Link)
2) (US Election 2008) Ron Paul (Link)
3) (US Election 2008) Barack Obama vs. John McCain (Link)

Now for the rules of the debates:

Rules:

a) Anything said in these threads will not be held against you. Nobody should turn around in a regular debate and try to use your own arguments against you, or call you hypocritical for participating in these threads. These are mental exercise, and should have minimal contact with the rest of the forum, and no statement in these threads can be used as material in a regular thread.

b) Material from DA threads may, however, be used in other DA threads. You have to make sure that even your polar opposite alter-ego is consistent.

c) No signature may make use of material in these threads, or quote the remarks of people from these threads, without specifying explicitly that it was a quotation from a DA thread.

d) No arguing falsely from the other side. You MAY NOT satirise the other side by deliberately posting weak arguments. You have to sincerely do your best to argue from your traditional opponent's point of view.

e) For the purposes of this series of threads, the counterpoint to a viewpoint is not always the logical inverse of that viewpoint. It has to be the closest defensible opposite viewpoint. You cannot negate a negative and end up with either a ridiculous position or with your original viewpoint.

f) When you enter a DA thread, you , for the time of participation, BECOME your opponent. You must post nothing indicating your real stance, or hint at it. You must try to appear utterly convincing while stating the opposite of what you believe.

g) You must not simply state your anti-position and leave it at that. You must defend it, as you would your normal position.

Please suggest others, and give me your feedback on how sound (or not) this idea is.

I know it is difficult to defend what you consider the indefensible, but please just try it. It's actually fun.

Bast · Nov 11, 2006

Christianity and Islam are similar/different. There's a big thread on this.

Trajan12 · Nov 11, 2006

Sounds interesting, I like it. Once again good thinking. :thumbsup:

As for a topic you've pretty much covered the basics, how about the death penalty?

Mise · Nov 11, 2006

Are we allowed to caricaturise the opposing positions? Because I do that all the time anyways.

Ansar · Nov 11, 2006

Doesent Perfection run the Creationism vs Evolutionism threads? :scan:

Trajan12 · Nov 11, 2006

How about the big one, Iraq.

aneeshm · Nov 11, 2006

OK.

We have two new topics:

13) Christianity and Islam: How similar/different?
14) Death Penalty: Yay or Nay?

I have thought of a format for this. We will "do" all these threads one by one, so as not to divide the forum's attention. Threads will be done in the order suggested.

Three more rules for these threads, which I'm putting:

a) Anything said in these threads will not be held against you. Nobody should turn around in a regular debate and try to use your own arguments against you, or call you hypocritical for participating in these threads. These are mental exercise, and should have minimal contact with the rest of the forum, and no statement in these threads can be used as material in a regular thread.
b) Material from DA threads may, however, be used in other DA threads. You have to make sure that even your polar opposite alter-ego is consistent.
c) No signature may make use of material in these threads, or quote the remarks of people from these threads, without specifying explicitly that it was a quotation from a DA thread.

I'll start the first thread right away.

aneeshm · Nov 11, 2006

Mise said:
Are we allowed to caricaturise the opposing positions? Because I do that all the time anyways.

You have to sincerely debate , and act as if you really believed the other side. For just once, get out of the mental rut into which we usually put ourselves!

aneeshm · Nov 11, 2006

Trajan12 said:
How about the big one, Iraq.

Done. This makes it to the topic list. I'm amazed I could have forgotten such an obvious one.

puglover · Nov 11, 2006

I've got a minority position on most issues, so I'll sign up. This should be fun.

Erik Mesoy · Nov 11, 2006

Then I'd have to ask what the opposite of my stance on abortion is. I opine that abortion is undesirable and should be legalized as legalized abortion leads to lower abortion rates.
"Abortion is desirable and should be banned so that more people will do it" sounds too wacky to be Devil's Advocate. More like Fool's Advocate.

aneeshm · Nov 11, 2006

Erik Mesoy said:
Then I'd have to ask what the opposite of my stance on abortion is. I opine that abortion is undesirable and should be legalized as legalized abortion leads to lower abortion rates.
"Abortion is desirable and should be banned so that more people will do it" sounds too wacky to be Devil's Advocate. More like Fool's Advocate.

Please, not here. I've created a separate thread for that . Each debate has it's own thread.

And you have to provide a sensible counter-point, not a logical inversion!

C~G · Nov 11, 2006

Have you asked mod opinion to this aneeshm?

It might create quite bit of controversy and making mockery example of someone's religion through continuos satire might be not something you would like to have in the forum.

EDIT: As a fence-sitter I could find it rather hard to participate though.

zenspiderz · Nov 11, 2006

Aneesh doesn't understand the concept of 'devils advocate' so this whole thread is based on a false premise.

A 'devils advocate' is someone of a neutral or sympathetic position who speaks up for a 'unpopular' idea or position for the purpose of creating a fairer debate.

What aneesh is proposing is that people attempt to defend an idea or whatever to which they are hostile. The result will not be a fair debate but rather a farce.

To whit this fictional example of a militant homophobe's attempt to 'defend' gay rights.
Homophobe - 'I believe a**e bandits should be allowed to practice their filthy perversions, subject nice lawabiding people to thier lewd behavior and corrupt our children so that these whiny ******s can have a fair chance to drag us all to hell.'

Farcical yes, fair debate no.

puglover · Nov 11, 2006

zenspiderz said:
Aneesh doesn't understand the concept of 'devils advocate' so this whole thread is based on a false premise.

A 'devils advocate' is someone of a neutral or sympathetic position who speaks up for a 'unpopular' idea or position for the purpose of creating a fairer debate.

What aneesh is proposing is that people attempt to defend an idea or whatever to which they are hostile. The result will not be a fair debate but rather a farce.

To whit this fictional example of a militant homophobe's attempt to 'defend' gay rights.
Homophobe - 'I believe a**e bandits should be allowed to practice their filthy perversions, subject nice lawabiding people to thier lewd behavior and corrupt our children so that these whiny ******s can have a fair chance to drag us all to hell.'

Farcical yes, fair debate no.

We'll see how it turns out. I have faith in this project.

aneeshm · Nov 11, 2006

The first thread is up.

When the first runs out of steam, I'll post the second.

aneeshm · Nov 11, 2006

zenspiderz said:
Aneesh doesn't understand the concept of 'devils advocate' so this whole thread is based on a false premise.

A 'devils advocate' is someone of a neutral or sympathetic position who speaks up for a 'unpopular' idea or position for the purpose of creating a fairer debate.

What aneesh is proposing is that people attempt to defend an idea or whatever to which they are hostile. The result will not be a fair debate but rather a farce.

To whit this fictional example of a militant homophobe's attempt to 'defend' gay rights.
Homophobe - 'I believe a**e bandits should be allowed to practice their filthy perversions, subject nice lawabiding people to thier lewd behavior and corrupt our children so that these whiny ******s can have a fair chance to drag us all to hell.'

Farcical yes, fair debate no.

I admit that I perverted the meaning of Devil's Advocate quite a bit, but that was done in order to give us a glimpse of how the other side thinks we think.

And I've done my best to prevent the first thread from degenerating into a farce. Whenever someone posted something farcial, I've tried to point it out to them. Some people persist, but the thread seems to be proceeding quite smoothly.

Elrohir · Nov 11, 2006

This could be fun, if everyone is serious about it. If I see a thread I'm interested in, maybe Elrohir will finally debut as an athiestic liberal.

Zarn · Nov 11, 2006

Dropping atomic bombs
God vs no God
NATO vs no NATO
Catholicism vs Protestantism
School uniforms
Electoral college
Illegal immigration amnesty
Drug Legalization (Lets go with Marijuana)
US-Cuban embargo
H. Ford vs T. Cruise :lol:

Edit: Republic vs Constitutional Monarchy

zenspiderz · Nov 11, 2006

aneeshm said:
I admit that I perverted the meaning of Devil's Advocate quite a bit, but that was done in order to give us a glimpse of how the other side thinks we think.

And I've done my best to prevent the first thread from degenerating into a farce. Whenever someone posted something farcial, I've tried to point it out to them. Some people persist, but the thread seems to be proceeding quite smoothly.

Ok I'm game. Even if it does get farcical it might still be fun!!!

Let's play Devil's Advocate!

Deity

Protector of Cats

Deity

isle of lucy

Détente avec l'été

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Disturber of Worldviews

Core Tester / Intern

Deity

Untouchable

Just some bloke..

Disturber of Worldviews

Deity

Deity

RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

Le Républicain Catholique

Just some bloke..

Similar threads