Life is meaningless/pointless/etc. (you argue that it’s meaningful/purposeful/etc.)
Morality is subjective (you argue that it’s objective)
My idea is to pick something where I think we disagree, and swap sides for the purpose of an exhibition debate. I’m open to other topics that fit the general mold.
OK, so lets have a formal debate where I support anarcho-captialism and you support keynsian capitalism with central control. The point is to get use both to argue in favor of positions we don’t agree with, and against the position we do agree with.
Debates are exhibition. They’re more about the art of rhetoric than actually proving a position. Arguing a position you don’t agree with is great practice in that respect.
Moreover, they are beneficial in helping you analyze your own beliefs: if you can’t present the best case against what you believe, how can you be sure that your belief is right? And an exhibition, where your reputation for rhetoric is on the line, forces you to make as good an argument as you can - if you half-ass it, you might protect your blind adherence to the belief, but everyone will see it and you’ll lose the debate.
Such a debate is a personal challenge and a good habit. It makes perfect sense.
Alright, I challenge you to a debate in which I defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good, and you argue that they make no sense or you’re somehow above them.
Carleas is probably a good debater. See if you can knock down your own views, thrown at you by him through arguing the other side. To learn your opponent you gotta be your opponent. There’s value in the exercise no doubt.
In his/her statement he/she is not asking you to debate opposite views.
He is challenging you with the following debate:
Carleas’ Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates are reasonable and good.
LaughmingMan’s Position: Defend the proposition that devil’s advocate debates make no sense or you’re somehow above them.
Definition: a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.
So he/she is challenging you to debate a position you actually agree with (not the opposite).
That is he/she believes debating the opposite is good and you believe debating the opposite is bad.