Ok, so lets assume for argument sake that the person arguing the view contrary to their own is not employing a strawman as their argument, would you still say that it is not worth arguing with them

That's just practicing sophistry. Either you have good ideas, or you don't.

Don't 'test tactics' or w/e

Just have a valid opinion

If you're wrong, then give that idea up

You could employ that logic with any argument you have with anyone though, regardless of if they're holding a view true to their actual view or not

If I'm having an argument with someone, it's because I think they're wrong.

Do you want to have the correct opinion?

This applies to any subject

If I'm arguing you, and you are NOT wrong, but you're PRETENDING to be 'wrong', then it's boring and stupid

We may have different goals in regards to what we expect to get out of an argument, generally in an argument all I care about is whether my opinion is correct

When you are arguing, would you say your primary goal is to convince the opposing side of your point of view?

Yes. I dissect my own opinions in private.

Do you think you can sufficiently argue every opinion you have in private?

I usually do pretty well.

how do you know if you do

I test it out, because I've incorporated it. But I test it out against people *who actually disagree*

That is impossible to fully do

It invites your own bias with no real disagreement

Correct, but in a general sense when working within our knowledge structure I would argue that it is impossible to detach yourself from your own subjective reality, and as such you will have blind spots in relation to your opinions

The way to correct these blind spots is by testing your ideas through discourse

k, but why argue with your homonculus, when I can just argue actual people?

The stakes are better, too, because if I can convince someone with a REAL opinion, then I *know* my argument and opinion is good.

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