I respect people for playing devil’s advocate. But there is nothing more annoying than playing devils advocate for the sake of disagreeing. For starters there are instances where if you’re going to argue against the grain you have to really do some serious research and in my experience many people use the position of devil’s advocate to avoid research. They feel like by disagreeing with the masses they have some sort of legitimacy. But in reality if you are arguing based on emotions and not facts you are losing. The ethos argument can be clever and win rhetorical points when used properly but if you are facing a master of logos and you bring weak points with the hopes of winning an argument through the sympathy of the audience, you may be left with just your dick in your hand.
Stats are easy to follow and logic is easy to stand behind. If someone is throwing facts to discredit your argument and you are defending with clichés like “don’t judge others,” or “I’m just saying it seems unfair” you will be left looking like a fool. Don’t be that guy. We have Google now. There is no excuse for people to show up to an argument unprepared. At the very least you can use Wikipedia and survey the topic being discussed in less than 10 minutes.
The devil’s advocate is no longer a shortcut to legitimacy. You do not seem intelligent or ethical by taking an unpopular stance for the hell of it. And saying you need to see all the facts when one side is berating you with information comes across as a pathetic form of stalling. If you want to be seen as a respected voice of intellect on social media debates then take this time to start researching. Use google and start looking up articles on the debates you are taking part in. Because your feelings are not that important to other people. What is important are facts. If you say you feel like something is unfair you better back it up. Because the other side will tear you apart. There are facts out there for any argument so coming to a discussion without any is laughable. In 2013 Forbes posted an article about scientists claiming there was no direct connection between second hand smoke and lung cancer. This is an extreme example of how many facts are out there to defend your points. It is common sense now that smoking and being exposed to smoking increases your chances of developing lung cancer but you can still find scientists out there disproving it. Same thing with the human effect on climate change. Though there is an overwhelming majority of scientists who say it’s real, if you are desperate enough to argue against it then use the evidence displayed by the minority about the history of climate cycles before humans inhabited the earth. (I personally believe the human effect on global warming is real and disastrous and I use evidence to back my claims.)
So please for the love of social media do research on arguments before engaging in debates. Even the smallest amount. Even one article. Don’t just read headlines. You have proven you can at least string some letters together to form a sentence by creating an account. So use your reading skills to research instead of jumping into a debate hot headed and empty minded.