If so, how well?
This is a cool question for me to answer right now. W/out going into a big long story, I’m in rewrites for a play I wrote about a year ago. (I write in my spare time. The shrink says it’s good for me.)
Anyhow there are two characters in the play; that’s all. The whole thing is these two people sort of arguing one point in a very tense, very bad situation. (There’s more but it’s not relevant to this question.)
One character I agree with but the other is pretty much everything that really disgusts me. The director of the play was like, well, you need a more balanced view for your bad guy so we can see why he went bad. (This character was a cop; now he’s a dealer.) So now I’m in the process of thinking of real reasons why this guy would do what he does.
I already had some justification for him in the script but they need more. This has been and still is a real session of mental gymnastics for me. I think I’m getting it but it’s hard. I was never much of a debater because I just know what’s right and what’s wrong, end of story. But now I have to see gray and I think my head may explode. But I think I really am learning to argue against my own opinion.
So… yes, I think I can. I have this director to thank. This is a very interesting experience for me.
For some things, sure. I’ll agree and debate to my past breath for the rights of KKK members, Westboro baptist Church, and PETA to hold rallies, picket lines, and demonstrations (assuming it all stays peaceful), even though I find everything they stand for morally repugnant and/or completely fucking stupid.
But that’s not quite the same thing, since it still falls under the umbrella of something I am passionate for (free speech.) I don’t think I could find myself arguing against free speech in any *large[i/] capacity. I agree with some limits, such as the classic “fire in a crowded theater” example. But I can’t argue against free speech that doesn’t have any chance to harm anyone.
Yes, generally very well. I don’t hold strong opinions without getting the facts of both sides. For instance, although I’m an agnostic, bordering on atheist, I’ve extensively studied religion from both a religious viewpoint and an anthropological one.
I suppose I COULD argue for something I’m totally against, but I can’t see a circumstance which would require me to, at least now that I’m out of college and working in a technical field. My biggest challenge today is in how to explain the data to non-technical people.
There isn’t an idea in my head that I accepted without a certain amount of self-debating. In fact, I’m incapable of really believing something without looking at it from all angles, ad nauseum. I’m constantly weighing the pros and cons of issues (typical Libra, I’m told). Even once I’ve decided on the “right” conclusion, the alternatives are never far away.
Caffeine is a methylated xanthine derivative derived from plant products such as coffee, tea and yerba mate, which acts as a mild stimulant and diuretic. Long-term effects include prolonged tolerance adaptation which may result in physical dependency. However, no fatalities have ever been attributed to caffeine withdrawl, and there is no physiological evidence indicating that the body’s organs will cease to function if caffeine intake is reduced. There is also no scientific basis for the belief that caffeine molecules infiltrate the skeletal system and self-organize into a biological antenna that absorbs energy directly from the Earth’s magnetic field. There is no reason to believe that caffeine communicates profound metaphysical insight directly to the neocortex of the brain. According to the best information known to modern science, it is physically impossible for caffeine to be a sentient organism, symbiotic life form or transcendent evolutionary proto-deity that loves us all.
As the lawyers have said, it’s real easy with practice. I represent insurance companies even though I generally hate their practices. So when I win big (and the injured person gets zero), it’s bittersweet, and when I lose, there’s a sense that justice was done to console me.
In fact, I don’t think I could remain sane if I was arguing professionally for something I was passionate about. It would be too emotional. (Thus I take very few criminal cases.) Being dispassionate makes me better at arguing.
(Although I’m thinking mine is a minority view–due to cognitive dissonance and all).
It was one of the things we had to do in History of Philosophy class in 12th grade: every Friday we had a debate. The first debater would be chosen by taking a name out of a hat; the other 5 would be the next 5 people in the class list. They’d get assigned to the two sides of the subject randomly. There was only one instance where the debaters got to choose sides, and that time the teacher even asked for volunteers.
I wouldn’t do it to fool someone, but I can do it and do it well so long as we all keep in mind that it’s a mental exercise, “the views espoused by each of the debaters do not necessarily reflect his views”.
It’s also something we do while discussing design options and possible solutions in my current job: looking at all the pros and cons of each possible solution, figuring out how will it look to our bosses and the client, then sharing your insights with your partners.
It’s not so different from having a character of an alignment other than my own “Neutral Good” in a DnD game, after all The char has a different personal history, a different ideology, a different religion, a different age, different morality… heck, merely finding reasons why, say, “abortion should be illegal in all cases and punished by the death penalty via stoning” is simpler. Legal Evil, too.
I’m usually pretty good at it on any subject that I debate extensively. I need to understand (not just anticipate) the opposing viewpoint well enough to try to craft some replies that will actually make some degree of cogent sense to the opposing folks, that will speak to “the world as they know it”, if the debate’s going to be anything more than a shouting match.
I don’t have a problem stating a case for something I utterly oppose as an intellectual exercise. my views are formed on the evidence and so i can see what the other side is using.
Following on from that, I’m confident that asking a politician one question is a hopeless exercise because they can prevaricate, obfuscate and dodge any bullet.
I even thought of starting a thread to demonstrate this e.g. I would imitate Mugabe (who has wrecked Zimbabwe through violence, intimidation, greed, racial prejudice and stupidity, leading to starvation, cholera and hyper-inflation) at a Press Conference. Posters would ask one question and I promptly deflect it.
I love to argue and on general principles I take the opposing viewpoint from whoever I’m talking to. While I do have my own opinions I ignore them if I agree with someone I want to argue with. If fun and it keeps your brain from dieing of boredom.
I do at work because I need to sometimes, so I know that I can, but I don’t the rest of the time. My husband used to take the Devil’s Advocate position on things early in our relationship, “for fun.” It drove me nuts, as I find nothing recreational about arguing. He mostly knocked it off once he realized how much it bothered me, but I still occasionally catch him contradicting me when he doesn’t actually disagree. I call him on it, and life moves on.
I like to consider multiple sides of an issue, but I hate arguing and the idea of “winning” a debate, so I’ve never understood the idea that a recreational debate can be fun, though I accept that it is for some people.
That could be interesting. I never met the man himself but I interviewed one of his ministers back in 2000. It was very weird - he knew he was lying and he knew that I knew he was lying, but neither of us could admit to it. (Before you ask I couldn’t say anything because the interview, and my stay in the country, would have ended pretty quickly afterwards).
In fact, thinking about it, Jonathan Moyo is a great example of someone who could argue opposing opinions, and in fact has done. Read the link, but basically he’s gone from anti-Mugabe to pro- and then back to anti- as it’s suited him.
I do it all the time. It is the best way I know to test my opinion.
I don’t want to be right just to be right. I want to actually be right. I want to have the right position on everything. The best way to do this to hear the best arguments for each position and chose from them.
If I don’t know the best arguments against gun control, then how could I be so sure gun control is a good thing? What if the arguments that I haven’t heard or thought of turn out to be correct?
The char has a different personal history, a different ideology, a different religion, a different age, different morality… heck, merely finding reasons why, say, “abortion should be illegal in all cases and punished by the death penalty via stoning” is simpler. Legal Evil, too.