zoogs
New member
I understand that you're making a devil's advocate argument. I am simply attempting to rebut it. Alternative perspectives should be justified.Allow me to explain why you think I'm acting favorably. As I've mentioned before, I tend to look at the other side of the discussion or argument when an oveewhelming consensus of the discussion leans one way.
Also, there's been a lot of attempting to couch an argument in a default high ground by claiming neutrality. I don't think anyone is *feigning* that neutrality, but arguments that claim this impartiality should be scrutinized against that claim.
Lastly, and again I don't mean this personally, but you've emphasized that you don't have a lot of stake in this and aren't interested in the policy details of it all. Therefore I find it hard to accept the argument that is is a serious look at the other side. Devil's advocacy should necessarily be investigative. Otherwise it's casting doubt on all consensus by default.
This isn't a personal fight, again. This is a debate over what sorts of arguments that claim reasonable ground should be admitted as such. Challenging consensus negativity on Trump is a reasonably important point of discussion, in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator: