…the sincerity of the arguer has a basis on the sincerity of the argument. If you don’t really believe in the point you are arguing then you are only “guessing” whether or not your position matches a “true believer.” Its probably a good guess: but its not genuine, and can’t really be anything other than a recreation of how you think the true believer thinks. Not saying it should be banned: but if you are playing devils advocate I think its polite that you point it out.
This is basically what I was trying to say, but all eloquent and stuff
There is a reason people who want to play devils advocate will commonly start their words or post with the words “To play devils advocate…”.
Arguing a position you don’t actually agree with or believe in is arguing dishonestly. The other people involved believe you to hold those beliefs or positions and their words are chosen with that in mind. That you don’t actually hold those beliefs calls into question the integrity of every single thing you say, where is the line between what you do actually believe and what you are just pretending to believe right now? Will you pretend to believe something else in a few hours time just for the fun of it?
Frankly I think that arguing dishonestly is just trolling. Everything I say is my own, honest opinion and that counts for something. An opinion that isn’t honest is less than worthless.
I think it’s impolite and possibly straightforwardly dishonest to not let people know that you’re arguing a viewpoint you don’t agree with.
There are fora where this sort of thing is totally acceptable. Philosophical arguments, sure. Formal debates, absolutely. But a general interest message board is not one of those fora. It’s more like a pub where people are shooting the shit.
There’s the reason we have phrases like “playing devil’s advocate” and “for the sake of argument.” Because taking a position contrary to your beliefs without saying so is regarded as a kind of lying.
When I read this, I 100% pictured a Far Side cartoon with a bookish nerd (complete with Gary Larson-esque opaque glasses) surrounded by a bunch of angry bikers in a seedy bar. He’s holding up one finger nervously. The above quote is the caption. Maybe add a “gentlemen, gentlemen, please” to the beginning.
Usually but not always. I do make a point that I present an opposing viewpoint without claiming it as my own. I’m basically saying a counterargument exists and here it is.
I think it’s fundamentally dishonest to use a devil’s advocate argument and not state that you’re doing so from the outset, however you formulate that statement. Yes, the technique is common in philosophy and formal debate - and it’s still a dick move to do it unannounced in the former, and it’s built in in the latter, where you usually get assigned a side of an argument without consideration of your own stances.
You’re both wrong. Mostly because “basis” is not the right word to use there… 
In those cases where you don’t disclose, I would consider that dishonest. (Note, saying that it is not your actual opinion counts: you don’t have to use the words “devil’s advocate.”) The inherent implication if you make an argument is that you believe your argument. That is the social convention. And doing otherwise is misleading.
Even disregarding whether that is right or wrong, it is, IMHO, a practical issue. If people think you hold odious views, there will be some animosity or hostility, even if they don’t say it out loud. And that sort of thing only gets in the way of having a decent argument. I see it all the time where people just start getting snarky and uninterested in hearing from the other side.
Granted, I don’t support someone faking devil’s advocacy. But that’s because it nearly always becomes clear they were faking (as they get too passionate with this belief they claim not to hold), and it makes people suspicious of the real thing.
It is such an admission, but it’s also lying. And lying is wrong–sinful, in fact.
It matters because someone who will lie can’t be trusted to not be lying in the future. It is impossible after that point to not suspect they are lying in every other communication.
That is the practical reason why lying is considered wrong or sinful. It erodes trust.
Too late to add via edit:
The whole reason trolling is bad is that the person is lying to get a reaction they want. And that’s exactly what’s happening here. They aren’t the same thing, but they are both lying and both wrong.
I never come right out and say “I’m the devil’s advocate,” but when I use words like “one might argue” rather than “my argument is,” I regard it as pretty clear that I’m not taking a personal position. If that’s not clear to other people, especially with repeated use, then they’re probably not someone who understands context, and arguing with those types of seldom fruitful.
Sometimes on reddit where the median intelligence is lower than the 'Dope, I’ll be a little more explicit and add a note that something isn’t my personal position, but it’s a lot easier to ignore non-fruitful contributions.
True.
Unless the abhorrent viewpoint has been presented in a way designed to deliberately piss people off, in which case it’s also trolling.
We’ve had actual Holocaust deniers come here from another board to troll us.
Could we have the mods weigh in on where exactly the “no trolling” rule falls, as far as these sorts of “devil’s advocate” debates go?
I disagree. Let’s say that somebody starts a thread saying that home schooling is wrong and all children should be required to attend schools. I might respond by posting, “The counterargument is that parents have a right to raise their children as they wish and that this right overrides any general interest that society has. What standard would you create that defines where society’s interest overrides the parents’?”
I did not say I was playing the devil’s advocate. But notice I also did not say I personally supported home schooling. I just presented an argument that could be used in favor of home schooling. I don’t see how presenting a different view on a topic is dishonest.
Others have raised the issue of intent, which I feel is important. My theoretical response was not intended to antagonize the original poster who advocated against home schooling. My intent was to further the discussion of the topic.
Here is a previous thread along the same lines.
Trolling is when one posts solely for the purpose of riling others up. The Venn diagram of playing devil’s advocate and trolling are not perfectly aligned, though there could be overlap depending on the nature of the activity.