# endangered species **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2018, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/endangered-species/822559 "2018-10-06T11:42:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 61
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/endangered-species/822559/61 "2018-10-09T18:22:41Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > And it would have been one thing if you let us know that you are playing devil’s advocate here, so we could respond accordingly. Like **Darren Garrison** I’m not sure what the rules about this are (and that might be a worthwhile thread for ATMB) but it’s frustrating in the sense that I certainly, and possibly others, would not have gotten nearly as invested in this debate if I know that you didn’t actually believe the points I was debating against. See, that’s what confuses me. I’m just a guy on the other end of a computer. I happened to like where the OP was going and I just didn’t feel there was a voice for that side of things. I argued it in good faith and put forward what I hope were compelling arguments, so what difference does it make for the purpose of the ‘Great Debate’ whether I wrote those arguments or whether someone who was a ‘true believer’ wrote them. The substance of the debate wouldn’t have changed. The arguments used wouldn’t have changed, so really what’s the difference? I’m open-minded about such things. Maybe the arguments I was advancing were changing my mind and your arguments pulled me back. In this case probably not because I didn’t find either mine or yours particularly compelling, but the possibility certainly existed. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/endangered-species/822559)._