Talk:Devil's advocate

message: I would rather not translate advocatus diaboli into "Devil's Lawyer". I think it's better left as "Devil's Advocate" because in this case advocate derives from the original latin meaning of to speak for someone (as the english word advocacy does)
:Etymology isn't meaning.75.11.191.119 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

message: This page is vague about the chronology.  During what time period was the title of Defensor Fidei used?  Until the Second Vatican Council?  Or until some time in the late medieval period?  Or what?  The second paragraph begins with the words "since then", as if some period of time had been specified.  But it has not.  Can someone clear this up?  Michael Hardy 17:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What does "since then" mean?

message: I've never heard the phrase "angel's advocate" before, but it did seem to turn up a respectable amount of Google hits. But at its current stub form, I think it's worth merging in here instead of leaving it as a separate article, since it would seem to have evolved directly from "devil's advocate" and seems to be less commonly used. BryanG(talk) 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the polar opposite, I don't think a merge is appropriate, especially given the multiple contexts of this term. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking at it again, I disagree with myself! Never mind, then... BryanG(talk) 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Angel's advocate]] - merge? 

message: Pope Sixtus V was pope during 1587 when this post was created so does that mean that that we can credit him with creating it? --Kick the cat 12:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Sixtus V 

message: if you only use your opponents dumbest arguments, to "discredit" his position as redicolous or troll-like, is there a special name for this technic?  -- 172.176.152.162 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand your question correctly, it seems like you're referring to Straw man argumentation, albeit a specific form thereof. shidobu 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really what the IP is asking (although they may have worded their question poorly). A straw man argument is an argument that your opponent does not truly hold; in contrast, "your opponent[']s dumbest arguments" are really held by them. I seem to recall reading a real term for the rhetorical trick (not necessarily strictly fallacy) of focussing only on your opponent's poorest arguments, but I cannot remember what it was; "picking low-hanging fruit" is the best I can come up with. If your opponent is a group, and you only use the dumbest arguments that any member of the group has ever forwarded, the technique can effectively be a straw-man-type argument, though, with an element of "nutpicking", as most (or even almost all) members of the opposing group will not actually use the poor arguments that you are refuting. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhetorics 

message: "This practice is generally an instructional technique in which one person argues a position that another is less familiar with, thereby teaching proper argument." Please fix, thanks. 205.228.74.12 08:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this even English? 

message: What about its use in comedy such as Steven Colbert's Colbert Report.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaac (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steven Colbert

message: My understanding of this term is that it was brought into modern usage by the interaction of Kennedy and his staff.
The historical meaning related to religion is certainly not in the current mindset.
Can anyone expound on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Urban (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban Missile Crisis brought this term into current usage 

message: Foofighter20x changed this page in February to say that Promotor Fidei and Advocatus Diaboli were opposites, i.e. that the Promotor Fidei was "God's advocate". This seems to be false, so I put back a clearer version of what was there before and added a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Colin Watson (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if they're not opposites then they are the same? It seems to me that the Postulator has the role of the Prosecutor, trying to prove that the candidate is "guilty" of being saintly, so the Promotor Fidei plays the Defense, trying to show reasonable doubts about it. If this is so, then the role of "Devil's advocate" is still in place. Does it make sense? Prudencio Clemente (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotor Fidei = Advocatus Diaboli 

message: I think if the mention of Christopher Hitchens is kept, a neutral 3rd party source is required.  --Rob (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Hitchens 

message: This edit has removed all mention of Hitchens being an devils advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil%27s_advocate&oldid=698018038 2404:130:0:1000:8DCA:40F5:A3AF:2581 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchens Removal 

message: Apparently the references were pending when the previous version was made, the third edit from the top showing the full article, but why was the rest of the article deleted in the next two?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.170.11 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did this article go? 

message: I didn't remove it, but I can see why it was removed. The old article made an unfounded assertion regarding the origin of the phrase. The work cited as indicating the origin of the phrase does not state the origin, but rather states that Promotor Fidei is commonly referred to as the Devil's Advocate; which does not exclude the possibility that the term Devil's Advocate was not invented for the Promotor Fidei but before it. 
The Online Oxford English Dictionary draws the same connection, giving it some credence, but it still does not state that the Promotor Fidei is the original Devil's Advocate. Many other online sources refer to the Promotor Fidei as the original Devil's Advocate, or give Promotor Fidei as a secondary definition of Devil's Advocate; but none reputable state that it is the origin. There seems to be a general consensus that this is the origin among less reputable sources. I do not have a copy of an etymological dictionary such as the complete Oxford English Dictionary; but I'd like to see what the OED has to say on the matter.
I agree that an etymology is sorely needed on this page, but since I don't know what that etymology is for certain, I cannot add one myself.
Further, if the Promotor Fidei paragraph is eventually restored, the section on criticism of the removal of the office should be removed since it is irrelevant to the original article.—Spezied (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Would it be of use to disclose at the very top (in the 'definition'), that the common parlance meaning has strayed significantly from the originial meaning?  Clearly, according to "Origins," the Devil's Advocate was there to tear down an opposing viewpoint or position with damning evidence, NOT to mock/elevate that opposing viewpoint by taking their position for rhetorical purpose.  From Fowler's Modern English Usage:
::...far from being the whitewasher of the wicked, the devil's advocate is the blackener of the good.
ref. 
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vr7muDFR6j4C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=far+from+being+the+whitewasher+of+the+wicked,+the+devil's+advocate+is+the+blackener+of+the+good&source=bl&ots=F42Y1t9OoY&sig=gagzAafB9mxYS0VQ_Ud0XxCWKWo&hl=en&ei=KUc4TfLhH4XcgQfD1pi9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=far%20from%20being%20the%20whitewasher%20of%20the%20wicked%2C%20the%20devil's%20advocate%20is%20the%20blackener%20of%20the%20good&f=false
For an example, arguing  pro vs. contra in the very current debate about "Tiger Mother" Amy Chua's parenting style, if I wanted to weaken the position of reasonable, modern day "good" parents (who are up in arms about the Tiger Mother), I'd play Devil's Advocate by relating a story about how modern parents will drive their SUV down a 1/4 mile driveway to  pick up their kids from the school bus stop - instead of letting them walk and enjoy the sunshine (not to mention they should have walked or cycled all the way from school).  As D.A. I would be arguing in favor of Chua's draconian parenting style, but only insofar as I was tearing down the "good" parents, by exhibiting some of their faults.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro cycler (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Parlance vs. original meaning 

message: It seems both British and non-British English readers have edited this page. For example, there's both canonisation and canonization.
87.113.130.185 (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent spelling 

message: This page affirms that Devil's advocate is a "former" position. However, it sources no official vatican statement, news or the sort as proof. In fact, a later paragraph states that while in 1983 the role was reduced in power and had some changes made to it, it does not mention what year it was abolished, and even says that in 2003, the Church brough critics to argue against saints canonizations. So? Which one is correct? Is it a former position, or one that still exists but has lost most of its power? 2001:8A0:7B61:1B00:95B3:3310:C482:FB98 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question and I don't know the answer. Britannica calls it a former position, but I see some sources saying the idea that Jean Paul II removed the position is a misconception. It looks like someone was appointed to it as recently as 2012. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former position? I believe that is incorrect. 

message: how does the phrase "argued against the canonization (sainthood) of a candidate in to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation of the evidence favoring canonization". scan? the "in to" following the word candidate seem to be a typo. 71.241.142.63 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar or misquote?