The Instigator
Jonbonbon
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Resolved: playing devil's advocate is healthy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,023 times Debate No: 63274
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

Jonbonbon

Pro

I have seen LifeMeansGodIsGood making the assertion that debaters who play devil's advocate are not respectable. I was originally going to make the resolution "good" instead of "healthy," but "good" felt a little too vague. We can actually choose a focus with healthy.

I'm not really sure why LifeMeansGodIsGood doesn't like playing devil's advocate, so I couldn't really write a more in-depth resolution. I'm sure we'll get a little more in-depth during this debate.

I haven't seen him support this position (doesn't mean he hasn't, just means I haven't seen it), so this will be an interesting debate. Here is his chance to show everyone his standpoint.

To clarify, playing devils advocate is "Arguing a belief which you do not personally hold."

Healthy will be "promoting health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit."

I'm going to make first round acceptance because I feel as pro I should go first so here's the format:

R1- Acceptance
R2- Opening arguments only (this way my opponent does not get an extra round of rebuttals)
R3- Rebuttals
R4- Rebuttal and conclusion (no new arguments should be brought up during this speech, but arguments can definitely be expanded on and new evidence is permitted.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

As distasteful as your whorish icon pic is, and as silly as this resolution is, I will probably have little to say in this debate. Playing devil's advocate probably will end for the player in the fire of Hell. It's not good or healthy. It may be fun and feel good.
Debate Round No. 1
Jonbonbon

Pro

Oh man that hurt. Right off the bat I got insulted over a picture that's not even me. I'm not sure but I feel like that necessitates a loss of conduct points.

Anyway, moving on to the actual debate, I just have a few points that prove playing devil's advocate is healthy.

1) Playing devil's advocate informs you of an opinion other than your own.

Actually that's the whole point of playing devil's advocate. You get to research and even argue for a position you do not personally believe. When you truly play devil's advocate (as in actually try) then you have to inform yourself. Now allow me to explain the benefit.

THE BENEFIT:

Here's the thing about holding a position. When you hold a position, there is a possibility that you are wrong. I know, we don't often like to think that, but when you play devil's advocate you may actually find somethinig that can strengthen or contrdacit your view.

For example, while researching about the death penalty and its harms, perhaps you read an article that shows you a benefit. This doesn't even necessarily have to change your opinion of the death penalty, but you are more informed and your opinion may actually be improved.

Whether your position is strengthened or weakened by your research there was no harm done. In fact, you were benefited. It is inellectually healthy to become more informed. It is also good for the spirit, as you can feel more resolved about an opinion. Knowing more can actually relieve your mind.

2) Playing devil's advocate can be fun

It can be really fun to play devil's advocate. This is due to the fact that generally you're not emotionally supportive of something you disagree with. When you are debating something you're passionate about then you can actually feel a little emotionally hurt if you lose. This obviously depends on how seriously you take debating, but if you don't take the debating very serioulsy then you won't be emotionally tied to the opposite position anyway. If you are emotionally tied, then it will be nice to get away from your normal debates.

THE BENEFIT:

Things that are fun can be healthy depending on what they are. Something that is intellectually stimulating and fun at the same time is one of the more healthy forms of having fun. This sort of fun is much healthier than various other forms of fun that can be used as alternatives.

In conclusion:

Playing devil's advocate is a fun intellectual exercise that can benefit the mind and the spirit, which fits the definition of healthy. Thus I affirm the resolution.

Thank you for reading, and now I will let my opponent speak.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

That whorish picture should have been loss of conduct points without anybody saying a word. The new picture is not much better than the old one. If you die today, are you sure your sins are fogiven and you are going to heaven, or do you think it does not matter and you can do anything you feel like doing as long as you haven't lost your freedom in the fire of Hell?

I'm sorry, I really didn't care for this debate. I simply looked and thought, wow, I bet there a a bunch of people who are going to follow this who need to get saved from the Lake of Fire before their countdown in time of the first death is finalized and they enter the second death forever banished from God's Kingdom in the fire of Hell.
Debate Round No. 2
Jonbonbon

Pro

Jonbonbon forfeited this round.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

That whorish picture should have been loss of conduct points without anybody saying a word. The new picture is not much better than the old one. If you die today, are you sure your sins are fogiven and you are going to heaven, or do you think it does not matter and you can do anything you feel like doing as long as you haven't lost your freedom in the fire of Hell?

I'm sorry, I really didn't care for this debate. I simply looked and thought, wow, I bet there a a bunch of people who are going to follow this who need to get saved from the Lake of Fire before their countdown in time of the first death is finalized and they enter the second death forever banished from God's Kingdom in the fire of Hell.

Atheist-delusional 3 days ago
There is a very fine line between trolling and disrespect, and in my opinion Pro just stepped over the line.
Debate Round No. 3
Jonbonbon

Pro

Ladies and gentlemen,

I think at least like 95% of you know what to do.

If you don't, let me walk you through it.

Conduct:

I started this debate to have some form of an intelligent discussion because I disagreed with a user. This, of course, is what debat.org is for. As some of you know, I rarely do serious debates, so you can tell this is something I legitimately wanted to discuss.

My opponent acted like he would debate it, then he said he didn't care and instead tried to evangelize to everyone (bringing people to Jesus by the buckets, which is unfortunate because humans can't fit in buckets unless they're mutilated). He also may have tried to condemn me, which I'm pretty sure the Bible says not to do. Anyway, this was either trolling or just the general state of being a d!ck.

Concerning the forfeit, here's what happened. I saw my opponent's response and decided I would troll him. I thought about it for ten seconds then decided to do something with my life and totally forgot the debate existed till I got on tonight. The forfeit should not way too heavily since there was no argument for me to respond to, I just sort of showed bad form, but for a lesson on disrespectful things you don't ever do in a debate, read above and don't ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do that.

Spelling and grammar:

Might as well just give me a point here since my opponent deserves to lose two conduct points.

Arguments:

I presented legitimate and relevant arguments. My opponent disrespectfully posted nothing about the debate and took a crap on his rounds.

Sources:

Might as well just give me another two points here for at least backing arguments with reason and stuff that can be verified. Also I was most relevant to the debate. Although I won't be upset if you don't give me these points.

Anyway, this is what I get for trying to have a legitimate debate. Fortunately I get to debate bsh1 now, and he won't do this. So yeah thanks for reading!

:D
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

So you really did not want a debate, you only wanted to harass me and try to build a case for your animosity toward me.

That first pic you used as your icon was a whorish picture, a young lady almost exposing herself in a sexually provocative way. I believe the picture was of a hollywood or music world whore who gets paid big bucks for promoting her whorish appearance. It's no different than prostitution, making money by provoking suckers with sexual enticement so they become followers. I suspect a lot of the boys here follow you around for the same reason. They want your body, and you feel like a star for enticing them to be your fans. You are not trash for the wild cats to pick through, but you seem to think attention of wild cats is good.

I hope you do post a hundred comments and get this on the front page.

Why do you think I'm trying to push your buttons?

You can play the devil advocate all of your time for a hundred years of God gives you that much time, but playing the devil's advocate will only take you to the devil's hell fire and if you wake up there, you will know that playing the devil's advocate is a losing game and it's no good.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jh1234lnew 2 years ago
jh1234lnew
In debate, "devil's advocate" means trying to argue for a side that one is against, not to literally advocate for the devil.
Posted by Narwhalicorn 2 years ago
Narwhalicorn
I also find it funny how LMGIG took Atheist-Independent's statement and switched it around, hoping no-one would notice.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
RFD

Although I don't take PRO's second point (Devil's Advocate is fun to play), the first point is enough to require a rebuttal. CON did not provide one. Instead, CON chose to blatantly disrespect PRO with would-be degrading comments.

I would have appreciated a little more fact-based argument from PRO just in the spirit of debate, but since CON offered not arguments, PRO's first point is left standing. With no arguments from CON, and the insults hurled at PRO, I am giving arguments and conduct to PRO.

Spelling and grammar aren't bad enough to warrant points (though commas and periods would have been nice). Neither debater used sources.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Front page? Doesn't LMGIG do that with his debates by spamming comments anyways?
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Hey guys, we should totally get this on the front page. Everyone comment and vote and stuff.

:D
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
All I can say is... wtf LMGIG, wtf. I think that this alone shows that he needs to be banned. Problem is, no one in the religion section gets banned for saying what they believe.

Apparently, religion is so touchy that people can get away with crap like this. Enough is enough.

#WarOnDDO
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
I'm sorry to say it, but I honestly don't think LifeMeansGodIsGood probably wasn't trolling.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Sorry for the repeated comments... not sure why that happened.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
There is a very fine line between trolling and disrespect, and in my opinion Con just stepped over the line.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
There is a very fine line between trolling and disrespect, and in my opinion Con just stepped over the line.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234lnew 2 years ago
jh1234lnew
JonbonbonLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con did not post relevant arguments, likely because he thought that "devil's advocate" literally meant "advocating for the devil", rather than "to argue for a side of a case that you oppose". Con did not refute pro's arguments, but rather complained about pro's profile image, which is irrelevant to pro's arguments and should be discussed about separately. Con also devoted much of the debate to preaching to pro, when 1. this is not a debate about religion and 2. preaching can be done in a separate debate relevant to religion. Pro met his burden of proof as con did not address pro's arguments. Conduct: pro started to get a bit disrespectful in round 4, and pro also forfeited.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
JonbonbonLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con completely held himself in a condescending and offensive manner, personally insulting Pro and general distastefulness has cost Con conduct. Arguments - Pro. I think Con believed that playing Devil's advocate meant to literally advocate for the Devil, even though Pro gave a definition. It was pretty odd, but does not distract from the fact that Pro presented contentions which remained unchallenged throughout. Without proper rebuttals and relative counter-arguments, it was easy to see that Pro presented the superior arguments. Clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Narwhalicorn 2 years ago
Narwhalicorn
JonbonbonLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I've seen LMGIG in plenty other debates. He does nothing but attempt to evangelize people and expects that to get him the victory in nearly every debate.
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
JonbonbonLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: in comments
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
JonbonbonLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for overly obvious reasons. If Pro forfeited another round, I would have put this at a tie. Arguments to Pro for actually presenting arguments, Con just acted link a dick.