homonculus, havent heard that one in a while lol

I was meaning the *testing arguements in private*

When I said correct I was referring to your first statement

If you are debating someone and change their point of view thats the point of a debate

To challenge each others thought process and rational

Yes, I agree

My only criticism was the in private bit. The rest I agree with

It's a tactic I've picked up, to try and destroy my own arguments

In regards to your first statement, I would say thats not necessarily true. When I argue with someone my secondary reason behind debating someone is because I want to convince them of my point of view, however my primary reason is to have the most correct opinion possible within the bounds of my knowledge structure

Unless you meant in private with someone else. And not by yourself

Btw when I say first statement I meant the one where you said
*If you are debating someone and change their point of view thats the point of a debate*

Debating yourself only reinforces bias, poor discussion, bad sources, and blond spots.

@Kscope Fine, fair, w/e.

But why should I debate a *fake opinion?*

Now a mock debate would make sense

When you say fake opinion, can you define what you mean by that

One person playing devils advocate to explore the point of view and rational for said misgivings

Thats what I assume he means but I'd like confirmation on that

@Kscope That's what you offered to do. Hold a different opinion other than your own. It's a 'fake' opinion, and you're not engaged with it

Playing devils advocate is fine with risk assessment, and shit, sure

But like "Gay marriage"?

So just to be clear, when you say fake opinion you don't mean strawman of a position, but devils advocate while taking the strongest opinion possible on a the position you're defending

Yes. I'd rather just find someone who actually believes himself.

That is a strong debate training tactic tho @Fitzydog that is debate training and devils advocate. In most topics the oponents opinions are known. So having someone use those talking points while disecting your own is highly useful.

But its usually a tactic for a professional debate tbh

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki Yes, I know. I consider that shit to be like mental masturbation.

"How can I better trick my opponent with debate tactics"

Given that my primary reasoning for engaging in a debate is to have the most correct opinion possible, playing devils advocate helps strengthen my knowledge of the opposing sides view while also possibly introducing me to more arguments in favor/against my original stance

Its been used by debators, lawyers, ect for a long time. Cant be to bad a tactic.

Also I dont know what you mean by mental masturbation, can you define it and why you think its bad?

No its more the devils advocate can question statements in ways your oponents would. As to allow you to see blind spots in your debate

> playing devils advocate helps strengthen my knowledge of the opposing sides

Not as well as the real thing, because YOU don't have all the knowledge of the opposing side. *The opposing side does.*

mental masturbation is being a faggot in the view of others

@Fitzydog again, thats not neccessarily true
Do you need me to give you an example in which this is not neccessarily true?

@Kscope Sure, I guess.

It's the difference between sparring, and an actual fight.

I didnt mean all knowledge. But basic talking points, and rebuttle questioning based off your own talking points.

So I am personally a moral-realist, my knowledge on moral-realism is extremely limited because I havent taken a course in philosophy on moral-realism. If someone who were a PHD student in philosophy were an anti-moral-realist, he would be able to make the point of moral-realism better than I would even though he doesnt truely believe it

So you are saying sparring isnt helpful to a boxer mma?

@Kscope lol maybe he's just an indoctrinated pawn?

Sparring shows openings in your styles

Wait, what do you mean by that