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

is that relevant to my argument at all?

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki Sure, but the fight metaphor stops there, because MY goal, is just to be strongest with raw physical strength.

If you're winning 'debates' with word games, you're doing it wrong.

@Fitzydog who says you're using word games to win?

Other guy

Either you are right, or you are wrong. If you lose a debate, you are wrong.

Black and white fallacy

k

If it's a grey-area, "no one's right or wrong" topic, then it's not worth debating in the first place

I never said that

Its possible for valid arguments to be on both sides, the point is determining which arguments are and arent valid

Make more valid arguments then. idc

Wait so do you concede your original point?

idk? If you make better arguments via debating people holding a contradicting opinion in some weird, recreational manner, then go do that.

are you saying I'm holding a contradicting opinion, or that you are

Neither of us are. I'm saying that holding a contradicting view for the sake of argument, like some kind of boxing trainer holding of pads, is dumb.

Again, like I think I said maybe 4 times, when debating people have different goals as to what they want to achieve

if your goal is to improve your own argument, then playing devils advocate can be helpful towards that goal

I improve my argument by gathering more information.

Theres multiple ways to improve an argument, you know that right?

Someone can have all of the information they need to come to a correct conclusion and still be misguided

Then they'll find out the hard way when it gets painful for them

And how do they find out that their argument is wrong

When enough people argue them and break down everything they have.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is why we should argue

People with *real opposing viewpoints*