Maybe "Devil's Advocate" wasn't the right choice. I don't take up the opposing argument just for the SAKE of doing it, like I don't do it just to do it or be a pain. Like I wrote, I think it's just how much I feel MORE in touch with how I feel about a particular thing if I've genuinely put some thought into the thoughts and feelings of an opposing viewpoint.
Sometimes I've found reason to rethink my own side, but I've also found more concrete reasons for my own viewpoint too. I just find it more enlightening to do that, and I guess I get fiesty about it if I feel someone has just investigated/researched/listened to stuff from their OWN side rather than branching out.
I like to think I'm helping them get better at debate even if they hate me for it
"Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get, but if you work really hard, and you're kind, amazing things will happen. I'm telling you...amazing things will happen" --Conan O'Brien
But what if the forest is irrelevant to the analysis we need done? What if the tree is sufficient?
Wood will never be irrelevant as long as we have to breathe and eat cereal. Analysis will never be irrelevant as long as we have to find trees and cereal.
Therefore, tree analysis is vital to seeing the whole forest even if loggers have been in the area.
I love playing the Devil's advocate. It puts people in their place and makes them think. Is a great tool.
It isn't about taking the opposing view for the sake of it. It is used as an argument clarifier, and to give people perspective on what they are saying.
Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.