Not advocating evil. An exercise. Would anyone be interested in taking positions they do not agree with and seeing how well they can argue them? Either way, I'm interested in taking suggestions on doing so myself. It would be fun if someone else could take on the opposite position they don't agree with, but that's probably not likely. If you can't take an opposing position yourself, please provide an argument to be opposed. I will take suggestions in this topic and start a new topic for each I try to argue. Thanks.
I can easily argue the other position. I think anyone who isn't so emotional can do that. I understand the arguments of the other side. Sometimes I even agree with a few of them but not in totality. Trump is a disrupter. He has lowered out taxes, put a conservative on the Supreme Court and is reducing bureaucracy. See, I don't agree with any of that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Context matters. In the right context, I can fully agree or disagree with each of those. So general statements aren't likely to work, but I'm still willing to run with any one of those. Just name my position. And I'll recuse myself of ones I only agree with.
I have a back ground in law and acted for plaintiffs or defendants and later owned a real estate office and although you represent the vendor and land lord I found that often a situation where you could find yourself arguing for popositions that personally you did not feel comfortable about. But in all cases I was paid a fee. Would you pay me a fee to argue here against something I am opposed to sych as slavery for example. You need not answer but my point is that if one is skilled you should be able to do what you ask. We have a debate section that is rarely used why dont you select a subject and see if anyone is up for it. The suggestion re minimum wage seems a good one because it covers accepted economics but also there is an emotional or compassionate component. If you want to test yourself take on Jan if you are a theist and present as an athiest and if you do I say my money would go on Jan. He is probably the most difficult person I have encountered and given what he argues for you would think he would not have a chance. But if you read any of Jans encounters you will see what I mean. In fact I would go so far as to say winning an arguement against Jan is as close to impossible as the word suggests. Or if you want some real action seek out Bells and suggest that men should be able to pat a girl on the bottom without her getting upset and deny such an action is not sexual harrasment...and I assume you are of a similar position against sexual harrasment and that it is totally unacceptable in our society. But if all know it is a game that probably would take something away from the arguement. You could argue that I am always right but that would just garantee you a win. Alex
Not looking to play devil's advocate at anyone's unknowing expense. Wouldn't that be trolling? And there's little reason to believe you can when you say you won't.
Are you talking to me? If so I say you are incorrect. If I hold a personal belief that I am right how could I be wrong. And dont ask for evidence I am too complex for you to be able to comment. Good to see you started the min wage thread it could be interesting. Alex
If your post in the minimum wage topic is any indication, I wouldn't have even paid you to help in a defense. So far, you sound like a parody of the opposite position.
Then you ignore the fact that I never lost a case and dont ask for details as I cant go into what is confidential given the ethics surrounding those disclosures. Besides reading such a long list would be tiresome and sound like boasting. Well how can I rise to the occassion when there is no fee...and if you give away something for free it usually not appreciated. And how do you know I am not just using the injured bird tactic...I am not but if you paid me a fee well then you could get to see that simple tactic play out. But a tip..if you seek to bring your arguement making comments that could be classed as attacking the player and not the ball, that is OK by me. Me I will be focused on the ball not the player because that works. Alex
I'd prefer to see as couple of these people argue something they do have a position on, in the first place. Just once or twice, so that they get the feel of what actually, y'know, arguing a position, is like. Until then, what's the point of hypothetically and at great length planning to argue, someday?
I think this forum shows that, overall, it's pointless and tedious to argue points in the first place. See any post by Jan or look at the style Alex is using above (taken from Jan's style). I think it's useful to have a discussion (after all this is a discussion forum) but debating endlessly is rather pointless (and boring after a very short while).
......Especially when one of the participants looks like a vomiting gorilla. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He's VOCIFEROUS Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's what a debating gorilla looks like! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree. Thats why I never get involved in the serious threads generally as there is little point arguing hoping you will get anywhere. Nothing will change anothers view irrespective of the soundness of their arguement. I prefer to keep things playful but it is surprising how that goes unrecognised. I spend a great deal of my day laying down so playing here I find entertaining and I suppose I try to be entertaining in my own way...And one can adjust when talking to fair minded folk ...my problem can be if I am having a painful day I recognise I go over the top if I took pain killers no doubt on those days I would be more relaxed. Alex
I've spent many a year doing this, much to the irritation of my friends and family. I have been known to do it here on SciFo. Usually it is about disagreeing with the approach of someone else who is in the same "camp" as I. (eg. I'm an atheist, but I find many atheists have really weak arguments - and I hate that. So I'll dismantle them. I believe that atheists, by nature should hold themselves held to a higher standard of logic than others, so I fight for strong arguments by attacking weak ones.) I was once engaged in a convo with a particularly eloquent friend (some of my friends are less interested in academic discussion) at dinner. After we bantered back and forth for a while, he said "Switch!" And with a few second pause to gather myself, I started arguing the opposite case. I don't really have the stomach for it anymore.
I would like to agree and I do but there is something to be said for the fighting fire with fire approach when dealing with some folk. I also need to resort to lesser tactics than you are able to employ because frankly I am past it as I dont have patience to argue sensibly with some of the folk I find here. I doubt if I could argue with you firstly because I believe you hold superior skill and second I doubt that I could disagree with anything that you may say. Alex
I now find although I would like to comment upon my recent opponents posts he will think I am a troll...self doubt has crept in such that I am now self conscious. ..like was..I can prove God does not exist trolling..I thought it would be harmless fun but maybe openning such a thread, although not my intention was trolling. Maybe starting the argue the opposite thread was trolling as well but again I thought it was a fun idea. Perhaps I should have passed. I dont know I am now confused and timid but I will be over it in an hour or so. But it hurts that my little play mate got so upset that he started calling me names. Sob. Alex
