A "devil's advocate" takes the unpopular side of an issue "for the sake of argument" or to expose it to a "thorough examination". Do they?

Or are they just argumentative for its own sake to stir up the brew and anger aggravate?

If they have no position one way or the other why do they even engage?

If they do have a position why not engage with that? Why pretend oppositely just to rile up stir up?