There are different forms of argumentation and they have a different tone that maybe doesn't come through so well on the internet without context. I dislike the debate club mentality where arguments are more like a spectator sport than a deliberation most of all, but there are less combatative forms of arguments that are really more like questions with extra scaffolding. I think all people are weakly informed and weakly opinionated about a different subset of most things and it's not always clear when you are in an environment with people who aren't also weakly informed and weakly opinionated. Arguments of the form "I believe this" and "here are my (maybe not so great) reasons" can be a reasonable starting point for laying out your prior knowledge and biases. Making it clear that it is only a weakly held belief is an art form, though, and I can understand why someone might omit that step in an (assumed to be) hostile environment. It's one of the reasons why I think the choice of forum matters. It can be easier to be more open about what you don't know if you aren't subconsciously worried about being attacked for it.

As you said, (I'm paraphrasing) there are often better ways to go about things.

I think that's really depends on what you're trying to learn. If you want to learn about someone's position it may be better to ask them than play Devil's Advocate. If you want to learn about the devil's position, the other person won't be able to help you.

As you mentioned, time, place, and consent are important. You see this a lot in forums dedicated to debate. What consent means in general forms like this one is a little bit more ambiguous. Some people are looking to debate and some people are looking to just talk.

Or, if you just want get practice (internet) arguing, its always a good idea.

OFC, the other people need to be interested in arguing. Random debate is a valuable skill, and I don't know that I 100% agree that "consent" is important. There's a difference between harassing someone and letting them know you don't agree (we call that discourse), if they're not interested in continuing the conversation a lot of people will just stop talking. Otherwise, you don't get to say things and then have some shield that nobody will disagree with you, putting it in the public forum itself is the only consent needed.

The only major danger is when someone doesn't reply at all. The OP's article ignores the fact that argument is often not just about being right, but about winning the perception. I think it is probably better (with someone who is not being disingenuous or harassing) to state if you don't have time or interest to reply, rather than letting the other argument hang -

- the last, simplest thing said usually sticks out in onlookers brains, not the 5 paragraphs of well (or not well) thought out response.

>I don't know that I 100% agree that "consent" is important.

That's why I said it is ambiguous what consent means. Engaging is always discretionary as nobody is forced to respond. That said, I think there is value in people being more clear about their intent, so that people have more information when deciding to engage.

This leads to higher quality debate and discussion than when two people have different notions of what the topic and purpose of the conversation is.

I'm okay with people trying out different viewpoints—I do think it's a good way to explore new ideas—but I'd prefer the post be prefaced with "to play devil's advocate" or something to that effect.

> If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask. This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient.

Unfortunately, it is also unreasonably effective. I mean, learning by being wrong is how learning works. It's how science works.

Often the fastest way to find the right answer to a problem is to loudly and confidently proclaim the wrong answer.

As the ancient advice goes: want to know how to do something in Linux? Tell a bunch of Linux users Linux can't do that.

Sometimes I argue things I hope aren't true, but just don't have a good argument against in the hopes someone better equipped will come along and convince me I'm wrong.

I think as long as you're civil and willing to admit defeat then it isn't really a problem.

How do you know you are wrong until someone convinces you?

I’m guessing the frequency with which people are both wrong and convinced so by a random internet person is rather low.