Do you feel compelled to take up for the opposing side during discussions?

I tend to see both sides of an issue, but I don’t feel compelled to argue for the other side during a discussion.

Compelled, not necessarily but I sometimes like to argue against my normal position. I find that helps clarify your thinking and also helps you spot discrepancies in my thinking on a subject.

If a conversation is swaying into nonsensical abuse and lies are being presented as facts, I will take the mantle of a side I don’t agree with in an effort to balance the conversation. It sometimes confuses the hell out of people who know your politics, but I think we all have an obligation to the facts regardless of our opinions.

That being said I’ve also found myself playing devil’s advocate with no justifiable excuse at all and when I do that I feel like a bit of a jack ass…

I could take up for the other side, but it wouldn’t help. No one would believe me. And if it’s the other side, then everyone knows it is misguided and sometimes downright mean.

Yes, when I feel strongly enough. But not in writing.

I will stick up for what I believe in and very rarely feel the need to play devil’s advocate.

Great answers guys, thanks.

Not really, I feel I can’t agree with it, then I can’t defend it.

I tend to take up whatever side I believe in. If it happens to be that my opinion differs from those in the discussion, then so be it.

When one side is being discussed in a manner dismissing any argument for it, when there are reasonable ways of approaching it, then definitely. The more general the topic, the more likely that is. The more specific, or where the question is framed in a way that limits the way it can be analyzed (e.g., “Is abortion a sin?”), the less likely I am to do anything but point out the flaws. I try to do so without resorting to being dismissive – but we all get to that point sometimes.

I can defend or discredit both sides. But, if it gets out of control.

I just change the subject.

No, not just to play Devil’s advocate. I will shoot down what aI see as a fallacious argument regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the point it seeks to make. Other than that, my support of others in a debate is based on whether I agree with the point they are defending.

In religion, for instance, I am an atheist who knows I don’t have proof or disproof for the existence of a deity. So I feel quite free to take either side if the opposite side is using fallacious logic.

Sometimes. It depends largely on who I’m debating with. But I do tend to play Devil’s Advocate when people’s arguments have huge, gaping holes in them, even if they’re on my side. Actually, especially if they’re on my side, because I don’t want my side to seem stupid.

I can’t even manage to make a rational argument for my own side, never mind the other one.

I hate getting into groupthink, so when I find a (rare) group of people who think like I do, then I try to make other-than-straw-man arguments against my normal positions, to see how they can answer questions that I often wrestle with.

@downtide A ver rational argument for not arguing. :-)

I think Socrates did this and and its helpful for knowledge, but not necessarily for reasons of defending an underdog.

It’s just good to pick apart any idea, whether you are in favor or against it. And if the idea stands up and keeps holding… then it should be adopted.

@Kraigmo – That’s how I approach a lot of discussions – using the Socratic method. Maybe it’s law school…but it can come off as contrarian as opposed to trying to get at each underlying assumption of an issue, on either side. It’s a method of not taking a position in order to determine which position one should actually take.

I like it.

In truth I rarely think of myself as initially having a side in a discussion or debate. I’m typically more stimulated by the dissection of each argument and proposition than I am of which is deemed most valid and reliable. With this said, once one side has proven itself to be more rational and reasonable in it’s perspectives I will act in favour of it, but this will then only encourage me to scrutinise it further to ensure it’s reliability as a stance…But i’m odd like that.