Talk:1432: The Sake of Argument - Revision history

172.69.194.35: Three unsigned things in a row.

2025-04-20T08:59:03Z

Three unsigned things in a row.

172.70.254.211 at 01:36, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T01:36:28Z

172.70.255.64 at 01:34, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T01:34:14Z

172.70.255.64 at 01:33, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T01:33:41Z

172.70.38.151 at 13:30, 13 June 2023

2023-06-13T13:30:49Z

162.158.123.199 at 14:12, 11 October 2019

2019-10-11T14:12:20Z

162.158.123.199 at 14:10, 11 October 2019

2019-10-11T14:10:32Z

108.162.250.162 at 05:17, 22 December 2015

2015-12-22T05:17:59Z

108.162.240.36 at 11:18, 16 October 2014

2014-10-16T11:18:14Z

Davidy22 at 05:18, 13 October 2014

2014-10-13T05:18:40Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Arguments are good. They are how you discover the truth.
+<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to,  so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-)  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
-:Then your experience is wrong, or you don't understand what is being communicated.
+::Then your experience is wrong, or you don't understand what is being communicated. {{unsigned ip|172.70.255.64|01:34, 20 April 2025}}
 :In contrast, it is often used alongs the lines of "OK, I see that you don't agree with my viewpoint, so for the sake of argument, pretend that you do agree with my viewpoint". I suppose this is an effort to try and get the other person to explore your views by stepping into them. For example: "Ok I know that you think that drink driving is fine, but for the sake of argument imagine that your dog had just been run over by a drunk driver" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 The Devil doesn't need an advocate. He advocates his positions quite well on his own. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.151|172.70.38.151]] 13:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
-:There is no requirement for a thing to be needed to engage in it, and you certainly aren't an authority on which things are needed.
+:There is no requirement for a thing to be needed to engage in it, and you certainly aren't an authority on which things are needed. {{unsigned ip|172.70.254.211|01:36, 20 April 2025}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 20 April 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:

	The Devil doesn't need an advocate. He advocates his positions quite well on his own. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.151\|172.70.38.151]] 13:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)		The Devil doesn't need an advocate. He advocates his positions quite well on his own. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.151\|172.70.38.151]] 13:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	:There is no requirement for a thing to be needed to engage in it, and you certainly aren't an authority on which things are needed.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:34, 20 April 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211\|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)		In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211\|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Then your experience is wrong, or you don't understand what is being communicated.

	:In contrast, it is often used alongs the lines of "OK, I see that you don't agree with my viewpoint, so for the sake of argument, pretend that you do agree with my viewpoint". I suppose this is an effort to try and get the other person to explore your views by stepping into them. For example: "Ok I know that you think that drink driving is fine, but for the sake of argument imagine that your dog had just been run over by a drunk driver" --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 08:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)		:In contrast, it is often used alongs the lines of "OK, I see that you don't agree with my viewpoint, so for the sake of argument, pretend that you do agree with my viewpoint". I suppose this is an effort to try and get the other person to explore your views by stepping into them. For example: "Ok I know that you think that drink driving is fine, but for the sake of argument imagine that your dog had just been run over by a drunk driver" --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 08:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:33, 20 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Arguments are good. They are how you discover the truth.
		+
	In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211\|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)		In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211\|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 13 June 2023
Line 26:		Line 26:

	There are two unspoken premises when arguing. The first is that both you and your interlocutor are reasonable (you wouldn't try to reason with someone that is unreasonable, would you?), and the second is that you both agree on some premise (you can't come to a conclusion from a premise you don't have). The usefulness of arguing from a premise that you don't have is that if your premise ever changes (like if you gain new information), then you already have your new conclusion at the ready. It's important because perfectly rational people should agree on the same "if X, then Y", but "reality is X" and "I think reality is X" are two different statements. With that in mind, Devil's Advocate as rhetorical device has an obvious purpose in that it allows you to address your own fallability and to look at the world outside yourself. Claiming to be infallible may not be unreasonable, but it's factually wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.199\|162.158.123.199]] 14:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)		There are two unspoken premises when arguing. The first is that both you and your interlocutor are reasonable (you wouldn't try to reason with someone that is unreasonable, would you?), and the second is that you both agree on some premise (you can't come to a conclusion from a premise you don't have). The usefulness of arguing from a premise that you don't have is that if your premise ever changes (like if you gain new information), then you already have your new conclusion at the ready. It's important because perfectly rational people should agree on the same "if X, then Y", but "reality is X" and "I think reality is X" are two different statements. With that in mind, Devil's Advocate as rhetorical device has an obvious purpose in that it allows you to address your own fallability and to look at the world outside yourself. Claiming to be infallible may not be unreasonable, but it's factually wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.199\|162.158.123.199]] 14:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	The Devil doesn't need an advocate. He advocates his positions quite well on his own. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.151\|172.70.38.151]] 13:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 11 October 2019
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:No it isn't. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162\|108.162.250.162]] 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)		:No it isn't. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162\|108.162.250.162]] 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

−	There are two unspoken premises when arguing. The first is that both you and your interlocutor are reasonable (you wouldn't try to reason with someone that is unreasonable, would you?), and the second is that you both agree on some premise (you can't come to a conclusion from a premise you don't have). The usefulness of arguing from a premise that you don't have is that if your premise ever changes (like if you gain new information), then you already have your new conclusion at the ready. It's important because perfectly rational people should agree on the same "if X, then Y", but "reality is X" and "I think reality is X" are two different statements. With that in mind, Devil's Advocate as rhetorical device has an obvious purpose in that it allows you to address your own fallability and to look at the world ~~one~~ yourself. Claiming to be infallible may not be unreasonable, but it's factually wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.199\|162.158.123.199]] 14:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)	+	There are two unspoken premises when arguing. The first is that both you and your interlocutor are reasonable (you wouldn't try to reason with someone that is unreasonable, would you?), and the second is that you both agree on some premise (you can't come to a conclusion from a premise you don't have). The usefulness of arguing from a premise that you don't have is that if your premise ever changes (like if you gain new information), then you already have your new conclusion at the ready. It's important because perfectly rational people should agree on the same "if X, then Y", but "reality is X" and "I think reality is X" are two different statements. With that in mind, Devil's Advocate as rhetorical device has an obvious purpose in that it allows you to address your own fallability and to look at the world outside yourself. Claiming to be infallible may not be unreasonable, but it's factually wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.199\|162.158.123.199]] 14:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:10, 11 October 2019
Line 24:		Line 24:
	The "oh, like a boat" is a reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.36\|108.162.240.36]] 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)		The "oh, like a boat" is a reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.36\|108.162.240.36]] 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
	:No it isn't. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162\|108.162.250.162]] 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)		:No it isn't. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162\|108.162.250.162]] 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	There are two unspoken premises when arguing. The first is that both you and your interlocutor are reasonable (you wouldn't try to reason with someone that is unreasonable, would you?), and the second is that you both agree on some premise (you can't come to a conclusion from a premise you don't have). The usefulness of arguing from a premise that you don't have is that if your premise ever changes (like if you gain new information), then you already have your new conclusion at the ready. It's important because perfectly rational people should agree on the same "if X, then Y", but "reality is X" and "I think reality is X" are two different statements. With that in mind, Devil's Advocate as rhetorical device has an obvious purpose in that it allows you to address your own fallability and to look at the world one yourself. Claiming to be infallible may not be unreasonable, but it's factually wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.199\|162.158.123.199]] 14:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 22 December 2015
Line 23:		Line 23:

	The "oh, like a boat" is a reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.36\|108.162.240.36]] 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)		The "oh, like a boat" is a reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.36\|108.162.240.36]] 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
		+	:No it isn't. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162\|108.162.250.162]] 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 16 October 2014
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Are we sure this isn't just Beret Guy going casual? {{unsigned ip\|173.245.56.164}}		Are we sure this isn't just Beret Guy going casual? {{unsigned ip\|173.245.56.164}}
		+
		+	The "oh, like a boat" is a reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.36\|108.162.240.36]] 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:18, 13 October 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Are we sure this isn't just Beret Guy going casual?~~
−
	In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211\|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)		In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211\|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Line 21:		Line 19:

	Regarding Devils advocate and copied from Wikipedia: "During the canonization process employed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate.[2] It was this person’s job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, and so on. The Devil's advocate opposed God's advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. This task is now performed by the Promoter of Justice (promotor iustitiae), who is in charge of examining how accurate is the inquiry on the saintliness of the candidate." {{unsigned\|Cobble}}		Regarding Devils advocate and copied from Wikipedia: "During the canonization process employed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate.[2] It was this person’s job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, and so on. The Devil's advocate opposed God's advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. This task is now performed by the Promoter of Justice (promotor iustitiae), who is in charge of examining how accurate is the inquiry on the saintliness of the candidate." {{unsigned\|Cobble}}
		+
		+	Are we sure this isn't just Beret Guy going casual? {{unsigned ip\|173.245.56.164}}