Reply
Sun 8 Jan, 2017 08:51 am
The phrase 'a devil's advoate'
refers to someone who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent
but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position by the Urban dictionary.
I can't find the devil's advocate unethical at all then.
Now, if a lawyer decided to aggressively represent a very horrible person, like,
Charles Manson, one of the most notorious serial killers in the U.S.,
could the lawyer possibly be defined as a devil's advocate?
Here in S. Korea, lawyers who only care about money,
often representing some scums are described as devil's advocate in the media,
and I wonder if that usage is correct. Not really?
From the point of English native speakers,
what do you think about the choice of the word 'devil's advocate' in such cases I mentioned?
I'd appreciate any comment from you.
Thanks.
@SMickey,
I would say it's incorrect in the particular context you describe. It's mostly used as a discussion technique.
No it wouldn't be an appropriate term for what you propose
The term devils advocate is just st what you described was n your rise few lines.
It's not presented so much to promote a view as to make others aware of other views.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace