OK, so the role of Devils' Advocate was originally to find evidence against or put counter-arguments to the proposed canonisation of an historical figure.

In a broader sense then, the Devils' Advocate should be there to question the 'assumption of virtue' in any argument. It's not about arguing aganst something, but about ensuring balance and reality-checking. It's reminding people that George Floyd, albeit a victim of savage, unnecesary and racially-motivated violence, was also a deeply-flawed human being - reality check. It's pointing out in a discussion regarding domestic abuse that women can also be abusers - balance. It's doing what I do when I remind people that J K Rowling is as thick as two short planks and that her animadversions on transgender issues don't deserve to be taken so seriously.

Finally, please don't get into the habit of believing that there is a 'clear right and wrong' in any situation. "Judge not that ye be not judged", for one thing. For another, empirical 'right and wrong' have changed places endlessly in my 64 years and will doubtless do so again many times before I shuffle off this mortal coil. Moral right and wrong are purely subjective and as such should be taken with a largish portion of salt. Be careful.