In the current day and age, most people know what a devil's advocate is, yet for some unspoken reason the term has become something that no one wants to be called and many people react negatively toward. I could understand not wanting to be known for being antagonizing, but the phrase means so much more than just to be an antagonizer.

A devil's advocate is a person who is willing and able to defend the side of an issue that seems wrong. They are willing to side against everyone else if they need to in order to show another angle on an issue, and in the world of 2016, that is no small feat to pull off. If this describes you, then you have my respect and admiration, but if you are even just a bit unsure on whether or not you are that open-minded, this is for you.

Let's start with the biases that most people have hindering them. When you look at the news or other media and see what's happening, there is always bias. Every channel has it and nearly every online article openly expresses it, yet people still flock to these biased sources. What's worse is that people allow the bias to be ingrained in them to the point where they begin to feel any opposition must be wrong in some way and they cannot be. Now, if you've ever taken a person who's very passionate about an issue and provoked them, you may know what I'm getting at. If you haven't, try it sometime with an extremely passionate person (but do try not to start any fights).

What you'll find a lot of the time is anger and a sense of superiority. They don't understand any side but their own, and a lot view the opposition as wrong logically and/or morally, with some being willing to concede on a few issues if only to make themselves appear less stubborn. The fun part comes when you find someone so passionate that they are blind to their own faults. It is these people that are the most close-minded in regards to the world. You can find these people anywhere and everywhere arguing politics, religion, social issues, personal issues and just about everything in between, and believing that they are right while the other side is utterly wrong with little middle ground.

A popular example (and try to bear with me through this one -- if it upsets you, just get to the end and I promise I'll remedy it) is how tolerant a lot of liberals claim to be (and you can flip this around on conservatives if you want and just go off how they claim to not just be for big businesses but shoot down any extra wealth taxes or something). Tolerance is certainly a good thing, and the world needs more of it, yet most of the people preaching tolerance are often only tolerant of those who agree with their views. Sit a group of "tolerant" liberals in a room with a supporter of Donald Trump who's explaining his views and see just how tolerant they are of their opposition. Not all will be harsh, but a shocking amount of people probably will, as having a group to side with will only amplify their beliefs and anger. This is a problem, but most often it isn't the fault of the intolerant, and they were probably taught that what they are doing is right. The question they do not think to ask is a rather simple one: wouldn't a truly tolerant and open person be able to debate the issue with an understanding of both sides? Some people on both sides assuredly can do this, but most can't on both sides of any issue.

So in a world with so much fighting about how no one understands this issue or that one, why don't more people try? Instead of just assuming that the atheist/other religion is wrong and misunderstood, try seeing it from their side and then bridge the gap instead of just attacking from your side and hoping they go away. This goes for liberals and conservatives, heterosexuals and homosexuals, and so many more conflicting groups that I'm sure we all know some of. "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" says it best with habit five: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

The problem here is that when you try to do that, you often glide right over the first half and just think you've understood the other side. That's not very effective and will only anger the opposition more, but most people can't catch themselves because they don't understand why they are in the wrong to the opposing side.

Enter the devil's advocate. This person tries to understand an opposing side by taking it for themselves first. If they are very right-wing, they may begin to take the leftist approach with their friends until they can argue other right-wingers into submission or somewhere close. Sometimes they may even find the opposing side correct, but more often than not this just braces the individual to hold their own with a much better chance of reaching an understanding with those with whom they were formerly unable to understand.

Imagine if everyone tried that on occasion. No one would seriously be able to tell where someone's opinions lie and every person that ever disagrees with you would be able to either tell you why, or they'd go back and forth with you until they could. People would understand each other a lot more, and that really is the ultimate goal of this: that you leave this wanting to understand others instead of judging others who disagree with you.

This might seem like quite a chore, but if you remember one thing, it may get easier: no human in all of existence has ever been wholeheartedly evil. Every person who has ever done or said something they supported had a reason that was good enough for them to justify their side. This even applies to the extreme cases, which I often use to test someone's open-mindedness. If they can't see why someone would ever do something (for instance, why someone would be for or against gun rights), then they aren't really looking at the situation with the intent of understanding, which means it's up to you to look and show them what you find if you want to reach an understanding instead of merely bickering endlessly. Don't worry, it isn't too terribly hard once you get the hang of it. Learn never to get mad at someone just because you don't agree with them.

If you want to practice without needing someone to argue with, use some history to argue with yourself. Some fun sides to try and defend include Germany's in WWII, communism and the opposite political side of whatever you currently are, but be warned: everyone around you will probably get mad at you for trying this when you first start out if you share what you find, but eventually you'll be able to tell them why Hitler did what he did to save the German people from their depression (even if he went about it in a very wrong way), why communism was used to try and help the starving people of the Soviet Union stay alive and why you now understand exactly why you believe what you do and others people believe what they do. You then may call yourself a certified devil's advocate, and that's something to be proud of.

Once you are able to grasp why someone would actually choose to do the things you originally couldn't believe anyone would do, you are tasked with helping in a noble cause: finding ways to get other people to understand one another. I've been working on a solid strategy for years, and being a devil's advocate is the closest I've gotten. Now, you may choose to just not take up the cause, and that's your decision. I only ask that you think of what we could accomplish as a race if humankind had enough people striving to understand and solve our issues instead of just dwelling on them for years. With any luck, maybe you'll try it out and be the one who helps your whole friend group to start seeing every side of an issue, the one who helps to cure the ignorance most people have toward one another. With enough people, we could make the future brighter for everyone, so all that's left to say to those still reading is this: why aren't you playing devil's advocate?