Taking a position for the sake of argument has been a useful and productive method to improve an end result of a doctrine, law, or statement. We have been involved in taking the status quo position in debates and find it a little uncomfortable and difficult. We can imagine that in an opposition in government if you played devils advocate with out a conviction its merit you could be stained be the perception that you have poor alternative to the movement.

In common parlance, 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. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance. The background of this word comes from an official position within the Catholic Church, in which a canon lawyer called the Devil’s Advocate, also known as the Promoter of Faith, “argued against the canonization (sainthood) of a candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation evidence favoring canonization.”[1]

Discussion is always better then unilateral action. Compromise amongst people of good faith is desirable in most all situations.
Taking the position late in a debate can put you in the place of folding the tent up for those that have done the lions share of work and may cause some resentment, however if serious error is prevented it may be the right thing to do.

Today in history: December 16th 1707
The last recorded eruption of Mount Fuji in Japan.