Any time we try to understand something, say human behavior, we always look at it from different perspectives or lenses. Whenever we form opinions or conclusions, we always do so with a certain perspective, or way of seeing things, in mind. In order to understand something fully and deeply, we have to look at it from more than one angle. Specifically, we have to look at things from angles we don't believe in or agree with to fully understand something outside of our biases and prejudice. This is called, "Playing the Devil's Advocate." Sometimes, people can be so passionate while playing a different perspective, that other people believe this person holds the viewpoint they are being passionate about. This would be an example of someone who has successfully shifted perspectives without fully adopting the belief.
Example: Let's say the argument is about the death penalty. One side believes it's justified, the other side believes the death penalty is unjustified.
Argumentor 1: The death penalty is justified. Murderers will keep murdering and they will never stop. At some point we have to stop the killing and the death penalty is the most effective consequence. It takes care of two things at once: first, it takes care of the killings and makes them stop. Second, it takes care of
the murderer and punishes them indefinitely.
Argumentor 2: Let's say that's true. Let's also consider the possibility that maybe the murderer was made to be a murderer. Maybe the murderer wasn't just some psychopath or sociopath who killed. Maybe the person was part of a psychological scientific experiment where they were testing to see how psychedelics and drugs would affect and condition the person's behavior. Let's also say that it was because of those drugs and that experiment that this person became a murderer as a result. Do you not think that the scientists were the ones who instigated and enabled the murderer to do the killings? Do you not think that they are the ones who should be punished? Just look at Charles Mason for example. He did just that and enabled his followers to do the killings upon his instigation. Do you think the murderer, once he's been detoxified and given psychological therapy to undo the programming and conditioning, that he would still commit murder after realizing he is not inherently a bad person and that he was manipulated to do those things rather than something that he believed in doing? Do you think at that point, the death penalty is still justified then?
In this scenario, you can see that the 2nd person is not identifying with the belief that the death penalty is wrong. They are simply looking at the argument or opinion from a different perspective to see if there's a deeper truth or deeper insight as to why that person believes what they believe. The person playing Devil's Advocate is simply trying to find out what the person's biases and prejudice's are and seeing if that person has a deeper insight as to the nature of death penalty and whether or not people justifiably have the right to make those decisions about the lives of others and what that decision is based on.
Come up with a list of social issues or personal beliefs that you have. Present a brief argument (as shown above) on one of those issues that you are openly comfortable sharing. Then, come up with an argument against it and breaks it down. Or, if you have a peer that has an argument or opinion you agree with, come up with an argument against their idea. This is meant to be an intellectual or academic argument and it's simply a response as I described. This is not an ongoing argument or debate. There's no hazing, taking things personal, or flaming/trolling.
The death penalty is justified. The United States spends more than 80 billion dollars each year to keep prisoners alive. The U.S spends way too much to keep murderers alive. If there were less prisoners we wouldn't be spending so much every year.
The amount it costs to execute an inmate on death row costs tax payers 2.3 million each inmate. This would amount to 3x times it would cost to imprison that person. Is the death penalty still justified if it costs more.
I think that Synyster Gates is the best guitarist of all time. He's probably the first person I think of when the word "guitarist" is used. Gates was voted Sexiest Male in the 2008 Kerrang! Readers Poll, now that's a stud. In 2010, Guitar world listed him as one of the 30 greatest shredders of all time. They described him as being able to perform finger-twisting licks, acrobatic sweeps, devilish chromatics and towering dual-harmonies. Gates was chosen as one of Guitar Hero's 50 fastest guitarists. He's definitely got quite the resume when it comes to talent, and I can only dream of being him. I've tried endless amounts of times to do that Afterlife riff at nearly 4 minutes in, it's just crazy, I don't know how he can do it.
Fanboying aside, there are some things that I have to discredit him for, no disrespect. Being as popular as he is, he can really outshine the rest of the crew. Granted he is lead guitarist, Zacky Vengeance shadows him. I definitely have a lot more respect to respect to Zacky, he's outshined like I said. That being said, he is ranked 30 greatest shredders of all time, not number one, so that proves my opinion wrong. I can't really think of anything else, he's just that god like.
Student Anon: I think the show Shameless is a really good show. It shows more reality then most shows out there. It has more reality than a reality TV show show. Yes, maybe the drama is what draws everyone's attention, but what some people don't realize is that people do go through that every day. Not all kids have parents that stick around or have a dad to lean on. All they have is each other. They go in and out of foster homes and don't react when someone walks out because they’re used to it. They make mistakes, but people with lives like this have a harder time to stay out of trouble and some try to not be their patients, so they mess up all the time and always costs them. For people who aren't in that situation, they don’t understand and judge them based off of the way they live and look, which is wrong and this show shows people that the world can be way crueler than what it is for some people.
Yes the show is great, but it's inappropriate and over exaggerated and makes the system look bad. I highly doubt that there are families that are that bad. There is too much nudity and inappropriateness. It encourages teens to get pregnant and think if a 15 year old on TV handles it, then normal teens can do it too. There are like 3 deaths in every season. It also makes it look like it's okay for kids to smoke, alcohol, and do drugs. Oh, and the car stealing-- it also shows that stealing cars and things are okay. It also shows teens that it's okay to carry a gun.
Student Anon: The best juice in the world is Grape juice because it provides some of the same heart benefits of red wine, including reducing the risk of blood clots, reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and preventing damage to the blood vessels in your heart.
Lets say that's true but let's consider pomegranate juice. It contains two plant compounds with powerful medicinal properties and is loaded with important nutrients. Pomegranate also has impressive anti-inflammatory effects. Pomegranate may also be useful against breast cancer; the extract may inhibit the reproduction of breast cancer cells even killing some of them. Should we not consider pomegranate juice as a better option than grape juice?
I think that there are pros and cons to the death penalty. Some will say that the inmates of death row deserve the punishment that they are receiving for what they did. Others will say that god or a higher power should be the one to decide how and when they should die. They believe that they will get what they deserve and justice will be served just not at the had of another human with their own faults. I believe that yes the inmates on death row are there for a reason however that doesnt mean that they deserve to die. I think there are many issues inside our legal justice system. I believe that it should depend on how violent the crime was. If it wasnt extremely violent they should just serve life without the posiblity of parole.But if the crime they committed was violent and malicious then they do deserve to have their life taken away as justice for how they robbed someone else of their lives or loved one.