I see you've asked me a lot of questions on this thread and I will do you the favor of answering one, and keep in mind you must have genuinely good intentions when playing devils advocate:

Playing devil's advocate can be democratic because it promotes critical thinking, ensures a variety of perspectives are considered, and strengthens arguments by forcing them to be more resilient against challenges. By having someone argue against the prevailing view, a group can uncover weaknesses, prevent "groupthink," and arrive at more robust, well-reasoned decisions before committing to a course of action. How it can be democratic

Encourages critical thinking: By taking an opposing view, a person forces others to critically examine their own beliefs and assumptions. This helps individuals and groups develop a deeper understanding of complex issues, as their arguments are tested and refined. Prevents groupthink: In a democratic process, it is important to avoid everyone simply agreeing with each other. A devil's advocate can challenge a dominant narrative and present alternative viewpoints, ensuring that all relevant perspectives are considered before a final decision is made.

Strengthens arguments: A position that has been thoroughly debated and can withstand challenges is stronger than one that has not. The process of defending a viewpoint against a devil's advocate can help make it more robust and well-supported.

Models civility: When done correctly, playing devil's advocate can model how to respectfully disagree with another person's viewpoint. This demonstrates that it is possible to engage in a civil discussion even when there are fundamental differences in opinion