"...a way to actually refine the position you agree with by intentionally poking holes in it. As rational beings, I feel it's our moral duty to arrive at the strongest arguments toward truth (whatever that means). So the purpose isn't just to argue, or to get the other sides views more representation. It's a refinement process. We should have good reasons for believing what we do, not shitty reasons. Sometimes, even the commonly held bastions of "common sense" are founded on the bedrock of nonsense, which deserves to be questioned.
I view devils advocates as consistency scanners. Even if I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your process, and so I'll argue the opposite view using your process, to hopefully highlight any weak links in the argument.
Playing the devil's advocate isn't about advocating a view you disagree with, it's about being mischievous by arguing against something you somewhat support.
How is any of this wrong? Why do I have to explain that I agree with your conclusion to point out that your reasoning is flawed? I'd almost argue the opposite here: it's worse to reveal you agree with the conclusion, because you're telling the person they should only believe what you believe in the way that you see it. It's presumptuous.
A better approach is to simply point out the flaws, regardless of your view. The difference between the devil's advocate and an opposing view point is the devil's advocate wants you to maintain your conclusion, whereas the opposing side wants you to change your conclusion.
People often misinterpret wanting to change your reasoning as also changing your conclusion, and I think this is mostly due to a necessary link between reasoning →conclusion. If you break their reasoning, then they may fear their conclusion can change. And maybe it will! That's what having an open mind is about.
I think this is where your misunderstanding is coming from. You're confusing the people who argue for you to change your conclusions (not devil's advocates) with those who want to change your reasoning (devil's advocates)." - some lady on some website
I view devils advocates as consistency scanners. Even if I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your process, and so I'll argue the opposite view using your process, to hopefully highlight any weak links in the argument.
Playing the devil's advocate isn't about advocating a view you disagree with, it's about being mischievous by arguing against something you somewhat support.
How is any of this wrong? Why do I have to explain that I agree with your conclusion to point out that your reasoning is flawed? I'd almost argue the opposite here: it's worse to reveal you agree with the conclusion, because you're telling the person they should only believe what you believe in the way that you see it. It's presumptuous.
A better approach is to simply point out the flaws, regardless of your view. The difference between the devil's advocate and an opposing view point is the devil's advocate wants you to maintain your conclusion, whereas the opposing side wants you to change your conclusion.
People often misinterpret wanting to change your reasoning as also changing your conclusion, and I think this is mostly due to a necessary link between reasoning →conclusion. If you break their reasoning, then they may fear their conclusion can change. And maybe it will! That's what having an open mind is about.
I think this is where your misunderstanding is coming from. You're confusing the people who argue for you to change your conclusions (not devil's advocates) with those who want to change your reasoning (devil's advocates)." - some lady on some website
