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.