Devil's advocate is unpopular because it's rhetorically dishonest - people with repugnant views often use it to abstract themselves from criticism for holding repugnant views while arguing for them.
I think you should be honest with yourself (and me): you're arguing for this because you think it's a good argument, but you're (rightly) worried you'll get banned by being honest about your views.
If you already know why it's controversial enough to abstract yourself from the argument, then why are you arguing for it?
It's not hard. Your vernacular doesn't matter. You don't have to understand the why in order to address people in a way that makes them feel respected as a person.