because it's fundamentally bad-faith argumentation and when it's used to argue that people don't deserve to live, people find that adversarial and an attack on their existence.
> Don't you think there's value in playing the devil's advocate, just for the sake of the argument ?
look, you're not arguing about the color of the bikeshed here, are you?
I think you'll find there's certain viewpoints that we don't want people even "hypothetically" (not really, the whole point of the devil's advocate is that you inherently feel that it has some merit worth) advocating for. People find it real offensive if you argue that they don't deserve to live, and in this case that includes disadvantaged people who are barely scraping by.
it's a coward's way to argue for something that you think holds some merit but you don't actually want to attach your name to, and when the argument itself is adversarial/antagonistic or genocidal we should generally not be encouraging that even in a "hypothetical" (again, not really) sense, no.
And when you are basically arguing "poor people need to be cut off from their safety net" etc that does reach towards the genocidal things - everyone knows what happens next when people on the edge of survival are cut off from their remaining resources. It's arguing they as a class don't deserve to survive.
Like gosh "I said it was hypothetical, it's a devil's advocate, what are you even mad about???" is such a HN perspective.
I could not argue for letting people suffer and not helping them, I'm not a lunatic. Would the argument that they are unfit for current conditions hold some merit ? Perhaps. I cannot know, and neither can you. It is a far too complex topic to firmly attest an opinion on, especially with our limited current knowledge. Is that an extra reason that this makes it an interesting topic to discuss ? I think so.
The extrapolation to genocide from a simple discussion is akin to calling everyone with different opinions a nazi. It's plain silly.
But that's literally what you did in your top comment
If one does not already know of any bullet proof counter argument, then presenting a "hypothetical" (devil's advocate) argument is extremely helpful to investigate why that argument is in fact wrong (or the "hypothetical" might even be correct. How can you know if you don't investigate the counter arguments?)
Refusing to engage with an argument because it is "dangerous" leads to no deeper understanding whatsoever.
Don't you think there's value in playing the devil's advocate, just for the sake of the argument ?