Devil's Advocate: The Game

[Chimeric]

Hey guys!

 

So, you guys may have noticed, but I'm a huge advocate of playing Devil's Advocate. I think it's a really important skill that everyone ought to have in their critical analysis toolkit. The more you play it, the better you get, until it's almost second-nature to question things before accepting them as fact - and that's a really crucial thing to be able to do (in my opinion). 

 

I thought maybe we could turn this into a game - that way (hopefully) people can further develop this skill without feeling particularly threatened or attacked or anything like that.

 

So here's how I'm thinking it'll work. I'll start off by posting a directive topic statement - for the sake of example, "Oxygen is good." The next person should respond with a quick argument about how and why oxygen is not good. It doesn't have to be long or super involved, but I think this will work best if people look up information about the topic rather than providing experiential evidence (I don't want anyone to feel like they're putting themselves in a vulnerable position). So, for example - "Too much oxygen is not good. Oxygen is a free radical capable of causing tissue damage, which can contribute to tissue death or cancer." You don't have to cite a source, but if you do, try to make sure it's legitimate (for the sake of the game, Wikipedia will be okay - just remember, it's editable by virtually anyone ). You can expand on the subject as much or as little as you'd like, but I think we'll all get more out of this if we aim for at least a solid few sentences. At the end of your response, post a new, directive topic (eg, "Fructose is unhealthy.") for the next person to respond to. Try not to make this opinion-oriented (eg, "Cake is good"), 'cus those are really difficult to respond to. 

 

Every time you think "wow, I did not know that," you earn a point - but we're not keeping track (unless you want to), they're just life points. 

 

Remember that the posts in this thread don't necessarily reflect someone's actual opinion, so please don't hold what they say against them! The point of this exercise is to broaden our horizons, not to take each other out. =)

 

Also if you have any feedback for making this go smoother or something, I'm open to hearing it. 

 

Have fun!

 

Topic: The death penalty is bad.

 

 

[Yeast]

1 hour ago, Chimeric said:

"Oxygen is good."

Long ago and far away (circa 4 billion BC) life had just appeared on earth. There were no plants and no oxygen in the atmosphere. Plants then evolved and Oxygen levels rose, killing about 95% of everything on this planet which wasn't a plant. Its probably the greatest mass extinction of all time. Diabolical, no?

[RoseGoesToYale]

Alright, debate time! One of my professors always said the mark of a good debater was to be able to argue for what you're against. Here goes...

 

The death penalty can be used to end the suffering of convicted murderers. If there's any chance the person might be tormented by their crime or by the prospect of life-long confinement, lethal injection would be a humane means of ending their torment while also reassuring society that they can't escape or kill again. It can also help alleviate overcrowding in prisons.

 

Topic: The light bulb is beneficial invention for humans. 

[Scottthespy]

Though the benefits of the light bulb are undeniable, one can also argue that having stable, on demand lighting anywhere and any time has lead to a massive increase in the types and hours of work that can be demanded. People can now work long into the night, well past the time when darkness should have forced them to bed. Due to this increased ability to work into the dark hours, many humans are overworked, stressed, and not getting enough sleep, leading to a faster paced and all around less fulfilling and more anxious lifestyle.

 

 

 

Topic: Eugenics is inherently a bad thing. (The goal of this game is to stretch our boundaries, so here's a tough one.)

[Philip027]

People who do this all the time are usually less thought-provoking than they think they are, and are instead just annoying.

[Chimeric]

2 hours ago, Scottthespy said:

Topic: Eugenics is inherently a bad thing. (The goal of this game is to stretch our boundaries, so here's a tough one.)

I was just looking this up yesterday.

 

There are two subclassifications of eugenics: negative and positive. Negative eugenics essentially involves culling or preventing animals or people with unsatisfactory genetics from breeding, while positive eugenics involves selective breeding for satisfactory traits. Technically we apply positive eugenics all the time - and have for centuries - when we breed our livestock for certain traits (intramuscular marbling, birth weight, milk production, etc.) In humans, women who enroll as egg donors are required to meet certain specifications (varying from age to BMI). This is logical, because in vitro fertilization costs a lot, and if we're charging a couple a lot of money for these eggs, we ought to make sure they're going to be as viable as possible; it would be ethically questionable to behave otherwise. Granted, this is probably stretching the definition a bit, because we aren't really selecting for specific traits.

 

Negative eugenics becomes more questionable, but there is a social application. There are numerous, genetically-linked diseases, some of which contribute to lifelong suffering of those who are afflicted. Preventing genetic carriers from bearing children would eradicate these diseases without actually eradicating anybody.

 

Topic: Playing devil's advocate is annoying. @Philip027, take it away. =)

 

EDIT

It won't let me strike out on my phone... For the sake of keeping the game moving, I'm gonna offer a less individually targeted, less opinion-based topic. Here's the new one:

 

Topic: Tomatoes are a vegetable. 

[uhtred]

On 1/31/2018 at 4:54 PM, Scottthespy said:

I'm not precisely a devils....advocate, but I'll play.

Eugenics is bad:

 

The russian red-fox experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox shows that evolutionary changes in behavior can happen over a very short time - in this case ~5 generations turned wild foxes into domesticated animals.  Without some guidance, human evolution will be driven by the randomness of who happens to have more children. In the past ability to have children was coupled to other positive traits and general success.  Now, success is measured by other means, and in the developed world there is no real limit on the number of children a person can have.  This has eliminated the natural evolutionary pressure that has kept the human race strong.

 

In the past the problem with Eugenics has been that it was implemented stupidly by people who used their personal biases to try to eliminate groups that they irrationally believed were "inferior".  A more scientific, rigorous approach could work.  We could discourage people who have substantial negative traits from breeding, while encouraging those with positive traits to breed more.  This does not need to be implemented in a draconian fashion - we are playing a statistics game. We can just provide financial incentives that will keep all concerned reasonably happy. 

 

This isn't quite the "classic" eugenics but that is because in the past eugenics has been implemented by biased idiots.  It has the desired effect - an improved human species. 

On 1/31/2018 at 4:54 PM, Scottthespy said:

 

 

Though the benefits of the light bulb are undeniable, one can also argue that having stable, on demand lighting anywhere and any time has lead to a massive increase in the types and hours of work that can be demanded. People can now work long into the night, well past the time when darkness should have forced them to bed. Due to this increased ability to work into the dark hours, many humans are overworked, stressed, and not getting enough sleep, leading to a faster paced and all around less fulfilling and more anxious lifestyle.

 

 

 

Topic: Eugenics is inherently a bad thing. (The goal of this game is to stretch our boundaries, so here's a tough one.)

 

[TheAP]

Tomatoes are a vegetable:

 

Tomatoes may be considered vegetables in cooking, because they are used in savoury cooking rather than sweet. But scientifically speaking, they are fruits, because they contain seeds and are developed from the ovary of the flower. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/is-a-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable)

 

Computers have improved human life.

[Yeast]

On 1/31/2018 at 8:46 PM, Chimeric said:

Topic: Playing devil's advocate is annoying

I think the original poster mentioned being able to see an issue from both sides helps to make one better at debating.  The topics presented here seem like chili peppers. I suppose one has to be careful not to offer something too spicy. Here is a nice paprika:

 

Man never landed on the moon.

 

HINTS:

 

- why is the flag flying when there is no atmosphere?

- why is there no touch down crater under the lander?

- why can't we see the lander, even with the Hubble telescope?

 

Have fun!

[uhtred]

On 2/3/2018 at 9:27 AM, Yeast said:

I think the original poster mentioned being able to see an issue from both sides helps to make one better at debating.  The topics presented here seem like chili peppers. I suppose one has to be careful not to offer something too spicy. Here is a nice paprika:

 

Man never landed on the moon.

 

HINTS:

 

- why is the flag flying when there is no atmosphere?

- why is there no touch down crater under the lander?

- why can't we see the lander, even with the Hubble telescope?

 

Have fun!

My favorite response:

Millions of people watched 3000 tons of rocket powered  disappear into the sky on a column of flame.   Where the hell else do people think it was going.

 

I do understand the idea though.  Its much more comforting to think that we never got there, then to think that once we did, but no longer can.