I was going through old blogs and found this one and wondered why I'd never posted it. I think maybe I was a little too fired up at the time and thought I shouldn't. Since I can't remember what sparked it's being written though, I feel safe enough in posting it now.
Why do people play Devil's advocate? With a name like that, why would you even want to? The Devil needs help now? He's not persecuting God's people well enough on his own? We have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous. I don't want to play that kind of part for the Devil. I don't want to get anywhere NEAR it. Now, obviously, I know that people don't mean the phrase that seriously. But things are usually called what they're called for a reason.
Observation: All the people I can think of that I know to play Devil's advocate tend to be the same type of person. Egotistical males (by their own admission) who think that they know more than others and that it is their responsibility to test, try and prove other Christians with their knowledge. (My experience is very limited, but that's what it has been.) This raises many flags in my mind - flags, not condemnation.
So what's the point of Devil's Advocate, and is it really the best way to reach your desired goal? (I give the benefit of the doubt here and presume their goal to be helping other believers.) Or is it a not-so-great way to do things except in very particular circumstances, even potentially damaging to those same people you say you're trying to help?
It seems like there are a few reasons for playing Devil's advocate. One, it allows you to argue and be on opposite sides instead of working together. Two, it allows you to be much harsher on someone's beliefs. You can scornfully question an answer the other person offers and tear it to pieces if you're on opposite sides of a debate. Three, it's a great way to show off just how much you know. If you can tear apart Johnny's (I use Johnny 'cause I don't know any) argument while knowing the right way to answer all of your own questions, boy howdy, you must be a genius! (Please note the sarcasm.)
My argument against playing Devil's advocate:
1) We're Christians. All things are supposed to be done in love. "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves." How often is playing Devil's Advocate being harmless as a dove? I would submit, very rarely. Usually the person who plays Devil's Advocate is one of the smarter people in the room, and probably everyone else respects their opinion. When they start tearing down beliefs that often aren't well-founded to begin with, serious questioning takes place within the person who is being . . . well, grilled. It's not very nice to try to destroy someone's, as far as you can tell, correct beliefs before they've had a chance to really even believe them. Especially if that person looks up to you.
I suggest a different approach. Either teach them or come along side them. Be their advocate; offer to be a sounding board. Ask questions in a constructive way, not a destructive way. Don't debate, suggest. Point out inconsistencies with thoughtfulness, not "Haha! Now your argument is destroyed!"
2) People don't like other people to know that they're playing Devil's Advocate. . . . Why, I don't really get. Probably because as soon as you say, "I'm doing this," then all of a sudden it's less intense. Which makes it seem like the whole point of playing it, is not to help people but because you like the pressure, the atmosphere of a debate. Honestly, I think this is why it bothers me. Christians don't know how to come along side and help others with beliefs. They know how to teach and they know how to argue. There is another way, but it requires a more listening and less talking.
It's just deceptive. I'm going to pretend to disagree with you, I'm going to tear apart all of your arguments as much as I can, and then at the end I'm going to say, "I was just messing around; I totally believe the same thing you do."
Really? And it was all for my benefit? I feel so special that you deceived me and tore apart my mental processes with such gusto. . . .
Nah. Secretive Devil's advocate is way worse than just presenting opposition. Sharp opposition when you're trying to settle things in your head is hard enough, but when you find out afterward that they don't even believe what they were arguing? It's much worse. It feels like a betrayal.
Addendum: I understand that for some people having a person, someone they respect, play the opposing side might be helpful. In fact, it might be exactly what they need in order to work things through in their head. My problem is when the person doing the opposing just decides to do it without anyone knowing, without anyone asking, really without taking into account who they're doing it to. They just decide to test whoever they feel like.
Which brings me to point, 3) It's really presumptive. These people need their faith tested, their beliefs challenged. I'm just the person to do it! It's up to ME to make sure that they know everything they believe and know exactly why they believe it.
And what if you "challenge" their beliefs so well that then they don't know what to believe? Good job; you gave the Devil a point on that round. Did your advocate thing a little too well. Playing Devil's advocate is like tossing around a stumbling-block. Like a ball, you throw it up and try to catch it again every time you argue with someone. And occasionally, you miss and they trip, and it's your fault.
There's got to be better way.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Another Debate
So I wasn't planning on making this a thing I do, but after listening to only part of another GOP debate, I feel like writing some more. (I did watch the whole thing; I just wrote things down while watching it.)
Anderson Cooper: I was surprised to see him as the moderator. I don't think he was really cut out for it. He did a poor job of keeping any kind of order; people were jumping in all over the place, and he interrupted quite a lot with his own snide remarks. He also seemed to be gunning for certain people, giving some people all the time they wanted and cutting other people off.
Perry: Most of the time, I can't stand him. He comes across as so artificial and actually not very informed. But I gotta give him credit for taking on Romney on immigration, even though I think he got skewered with it just as bad. I would be thrilled if he could keep throwing doubts on Romney and take himself out of it as well. I think he may have ended up making Romney look better though by the end of it. :/
Cain: His plan got hammered at the beginning! I was really happy to hear him talk about something other then 9-9-9 when the healthcare thing came up. He gets points for owning up to his former position on TARP in my opinion. He seems like a very up-front person, but he also seems to have a hard time getting across what he's trying to. Thankfully for him, most people don't seem to care if you can explain it, as long as it works.
Paul: He did really well with the Latino question, and I'm glad he had more of a chance to talk later on. I'm not sure that I completely agree with him on the March on Wall Street thing . . . . But that's probably because I'm not sure how things work. It seems to me though that if President Obama was the one that sanctioned what the FED was dong, then some of those people are definitely at fault, because they voted for him. If the FED did it all themselves, without help from the administration, then Paul is right. I just don't know which one it is.
Bachmann: She did WAY better this time, in my opinion. I don't know if it's actually seeing and hearing her, or what, but I liked her a lot more this time around. I thought her appeal to moms was a little weird. That didn't seem like a debate forum thing, but whatever. I also think she's advertising for herself a little too hard.
Santorum: I didn't like that he got so fired up with Romney. Saying Romney was out of time was not a good thing; that wasn't his job. I think he'd have done better if he'd kept his cool, but he obviously has a big problem with Romney's less-than-open approach, which I have to agree with. He did a really good job emphasizing family with the Latino question - I would bet that he would get a lot of Latino votes for that because of his references to family and faith (and his being a Catholic). I think he has a problem with referring to the other candidates specifically though. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose or what, but I think he'd serve himself better to answer questions in the positive (I would do X) rather than the negative (They brought this on us).
Gingrich: I love how he called out Romney about Romney not getting that idea from him. That was great. Also, his address to the Latino community was very well done. I really liked his answer to the faith/religion question. I think he did slightly better with it than Santorum even. I also think he did better in this debate than the last one.
Romney: The more I hear about him, the worse he seems. I think the only reason he could get anywhere is because he's really the only one with charisma. He's got the salt-and-pepper hair, a good voice, it takes a lot to get him upset, and he has the ability to make himself look like the one who's been wronged. And he's a politician - he can speak well without saying much but sounding like he knows exactly what he's talking about.
Overall: The only two people that I really, really, really don't want to see win it are Romney and Perry.
Anderson Cooper: I was surprised to see him as the moderator. I don't think he was really cut out for it. He did a poor job of keeping any kind of order; people were jumping in all over the place, and he interrupted quite a lot with his own snide remarks. He also seemed to be gunning for certain people, giving some people all the time they wanted and cutting other people off.
Perry: Most of the time, I can't stand him. He comes across as so artificial and actually not very informed. But I gotta give him credit for taking on Romney on immigration, even though I think he got skewered with it just as bad. I would be thrilled if he could keep throwing doubts on Romney and take himself out of it as well. I think he may have ended up making Romney look better though by the end of it. :/
Cain: His plan got hammered at the beginning! I was really happy to hear him talk about something other then 9-9-9 when the healthcare thing came up. He gets points for owning up to his former position on TARP in my opinion. He seems like a very up-front person, but he also seems to have a hard time getting across what he's trying to. Thankfully for him, most people don't seem to care if you can explain it, as long as it works.
Paul: He did really well with the Latino question, and I'm glad he had more of a chance to talk later on. I'm not sure that I completely agree with him on the March on Wall Street thing . . . . But that's probably because I'm not sure how things work. It seems to me though that if President Obama was the one that sanctioned what the FED was dong, then some of those people are definitely at fault, because they voted for him. If the FED did it all themselves, without help from the administration, then Paul is right. I just don't know which one it is.
Bachmann: She did WAY better this time, in my opinion. I don't know if it's actually seeing and hearing her, or what, but I liked her a lot more this time around. I thought her appeal to moms was a little weird. That didn't seem like a debate forum thing, but whatever. I also think she's advertising for herself a little too hard.
Santorum: I didn't like that he got so fired up with Romney. Saying Romney was out of time was not a good thing; that wasn't his job. I think he'd have done better if he'd kept his cool, but he obviously has a big problem with Romney's less-than-open approach, which I have to agree with. He did a really good job emphasizing family with the Latino question - I would bet that he would get a lot of Latino votes for that because of his references to family and faith (and his being a Catholic). I think he has a problem with referring to the other candidates specifically though. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose or what, but I think he'd serve himself better to answer questions in the positive (I would do X) rather than the negative (They brought this on us).
Gingrich: I love how he called out Romney about Romney not getting that idea from him. That was great. Also, his address to the Latino community was very well done. I really liked his answer to the faith/religion question. I think he did slightly better with it than Santorum even. I also think he did better in this debate than the last one.
Romney: The more I hear about him, the worse he seems. I think the only reason he could get anywhere is because he's really the only one with charisma. He's got the salt-and-pepper hair, a good voice, it takes a lot to get him upset, and he has the ability to make himself look like the one who's been wronged. And he's a politician - he can speak well without saying much but sounding like he knows exactly what he's talking about.
Overall: The only two people that I really, really, really don't want to see win it are Romney and Perry.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Politics
There was a debate recently amongst the Republican Candidates that I would have known nothing about had my brother not posted something about it on Facebook. But he did, and I had time and I took the opportunity to read the transcript from said debate. There were a few things that struck me from the debate itself and from a few articles about the debate. Most of these people I know nothing about other than what I can remember from listening to the debate, so bear with me. I may be way off on things.
The moderating job didn't seem to be done very well. The guy even forgot that Romney came before Santorum. Thankfully, Santorum caught it and passed the spotlight to Romney, but Romney had to rub the poor PBS guy's face in it a little before continuing.
The winners and the losers seem to be determined by who got to talk the most. In the context of Proverbs, this bothers me. Romney did a lot of talking; he seems popular; from what was written, he seemed to have the easiest time communicating his ideas and thoughts - other people seemed to stumble around for words a bit - and from what I read today, he doesn't seem like he'd be terrible for our economy. However, he did a lot of talking, and I find that I can't sum him up at all. There's nothing I can say, "He is definitely for (or against) X." That makes him seem very much a politician and that makes me not trust him.
Santorum is for family. That was obvious when he said, "Families that have two- that have a husband and a wife working. . . ." He didn't want to say families that have two "parents." I wished he'd said more without mentioning Cain. He also seemed to be for cutting taxes, which sounds good to little ole me.
Ron Paul (It seems weird if I just called him Paul. . . .) seems very informed and unpopular to the point of everyone paying attention knowing that he's the "unmentionable guy." He gets included in appearance but he's not in the In Crowd. I can't remember anyone asking him a question; he got lumped in with the "Winners" by virtue of asking worthy questions; and basically was ignored (as far as I saw) in the reports on the debate. He was also the only person mentioned in the fact-checkers article that didn't say anything wrong (unlike Santorum, Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman), if you trust the people who wrote the article.
I'd never seen Cain, nor heard him speak before, but I was very turned off to him. He had one tune, and he didn't seem to understand it very well. He seemed to want simplicity in a complex situation, and I don't think he's going to find it. I was a little surprised about him, because I'd heard a lot of talk about him, and he was nothing like what I expected. He was nit-picky and overall didn't seem very gracious. The question wasn't about the morality of beer as opposed to pizza; it was about taxing food.
In my opinion, Bachmann should get out of it. I think she's a smart, classy lady, but she didn't seem to have very much ability to say what she wanted to. She was difficult to understand and she went back and forth from being, "I'm a mother of 28" to "I'm a lawyer." On the one hand, she seemed almost too down to earth, and on the other hand she struck me as being very legally minded. Maybe it was an off day for her or maybe I just didn't get her. I don't know.
Huntsman didn't seem to be taking it seriously and therefore, I found it hard to take him seriously. He also totally spaced on the point of how (I think it was Romney) wanted to repeal Obamacare and how that worked. I liked how Santorum jumped in and explained it for him. Hehehehe.
Gingrich didn't seem to be there for himself. He seemed to be there to say, "Yeah, he's right about that. You've got that right, Bachmann. Listen to so-and-so." It was slightly confusing, and yet refreshing. He didn't seem to make any overtures for his own bid, rather boosting other candidates that he thought were correct, as well as taking shots at people like Bernanke. He seemed more interested in making sure that the people listening were getting correct information than trying to market himself. I liked it.
Perry also seemed to get a lot of talking in without saying much. He seemed focused on getting a good leader for the country, but he didn't want to share his plan for the country - which made him not seem like a leader. There were a couple of other red flags that come up with him that made me think twice.
Overall, I like Santorum for his graciousness and Ron Paul for his very "this is the way it is" take on things. I dislike Cain and Romney makes me wary, though Perry worries me even more. Gingrich, Huntsman, and Bachmann I have a hard time thinking that they're really going to do much.
The moderating job didn't seem to be done very well. The guy even forgot that Romney came before Santorum. Thankfully, Santorum caught it and passed the spotlight to Romney, but Romney had to rub the poor PBS guy's face in it a little before continuing.
The winners and the losers seem to be determined by who got to talk the most. In the context of Proverbs, this bothers me. Romney did a lot of talking; he seems popular; from what was written, he seemed to have the easiest time communicating his ideas and thoughts - other people seemed to stumble around for words a bit - and from what I read today, he doesn't seem like he'd be terrible for our economy. However, he did a lot of talking, and I find that I can't sum him up at all. There's nothing I can say, "He is definitely for (or against) X." That makes him seem very much a politician and that makes me not trust him.
Santorum is for family. That was obvious when he said, "Families that have two- that have a husband and a wife working. . . ." He didn't want to say families that have two "parents." I wished he'd said more without mentioning Cain. He also seemed to be for cutting taxes, which sounds good to little ole me.
Ron Paul (It seems weird if I just called him Paul. . . .) seems very informed and unpopular to the point of everyone paying attention knowing that he's the "unmentionable guy." He gets included in appearance but he's not in the In Crowd. I can't remember anyone asking him a question; he got lumped in with the "Winners" by virtue of asking worthy questions; and basically was ignored (as far as I saw) in the reports on the debate. He was also the only person mentioned in the fact-checkers article that didn't say anything wrong (unlike Santorum, Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman), if you trust the people who wrote the article.
I'd never seen Cain, nor heard him speak before, but I was very turned off to him. He had one tune, and he didn't seem to understand it very well. He seemed to want simplicity in a complex situation, and I don't think he's going to find it. I was a little surprised about him, because I'd heard a lot of talk about him, and he was nothing like what I expected. He was nit-picky and overall didn't seem very gracious. The question wasn't about the morality of beer as opposed to pizza; it was about taxing food.
In my opinion, Bachmann should get out of it. I think she's a smart, classy lady, but she didn't seem to have very much ability to say what she wanted to. She was difficult to understand and she went back and forth from being, "I'm a mother of 28" to "I'm a lawyer." On the one hand, she seemed almost too down to earth, and on the other hand she struck me as being very legally minded. Maybe it was an off day for her or maybe I just didn't get her. I don't know.
Huntsman didn't seem to be taking it seriously and therefore, I found it hard to take him seriously. He also totally spaced on the point of how (I think it was Romney) wanted to repeal Obamacare and how that worked. I liked how Santorum jumped in and explained it for him. Hehehehe.
Gingrich didn't seem to be there for himself. He seemed to be there to say, "Yeah, he's right about that. You've got that right, Bachmann. Listen to so-and-so." It was slightly confusing, and yet refreshing. He didn't seem to make any overtures for his own bid, rather boosting other candidates that he thought were correct, as well as taking shots at people like Bernanke. He seemed more interested in making sure that the people listening were getting correct information than trying to market himself. I liked it.
Perry also seemed to get a lot of talking in without saying much. He seemed focused on getting a good leader for the country, but he didn't want to share his plan for the country - which made him not seem like a leader. There were a couple of other red flags that come up with him that made me think twice.
Overall, I like Santorum for his graciousness and Ron Paul for his very "this is the way it is" take on things. I dislike Cain and Romney makes me wary, though Perry worries me even more. Gingrich, Huntsman, and Bachmann I have a hard time thinking that they're really going to do much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
