# Quick philosophy or rhetoric question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 15, 2025, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063 "2025-09-15T17:04:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/1 "2025-09-15T17:04:23Z")
What is the philosophy or rhetoric technique where a speaker argues both sides of the debate? I thought it was sophistry but looking it up, that’s not it. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/2 "2025-09-15T17:15:02Z")
I think you are looking for the [“If-by-Whiskey” inferential fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey), a form of relativist fallacy in which the argumentor equivocates between two or more positions by asserting conditions that obscure the essential principle or purpose of the argument. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/3 "2025-09-15T17:17:14Z")
Devil’s advocate..? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/4 "2025-09-15T17:17:30Z")
No. I’m looking for something like “Is there a God.” where someone argues in favor then turns right around and can argue against the position. I swear I read about it in a novel. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/5 "2025-09-15T17:26:33Z")
I have no idea what term might be used for it. But as described, it is not a fallacy but rather a technique for demonstrating that you do understand the perspective(s) of those with whom you disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/6 "2025-09-15T17:30:05Z")
Exactly, which is why it is not sophistry despite me remembering that being the description in the novel. So either I’m misremembering 40 years after the fact or the author was wrong in calling the character a sophist. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/7 "2025-09-15T17:31:54Z")
It would help if you could provide a solid example of what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/8 "2025-09-15T17:44:59Z")
Sounds kind of like steel-manning. Unless the speaker deliberately presents the opposing view in as weak and unfair a way as possible, which is then straw-manning. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/9 "2025-09-15T17:56:51Z")
It was if given a philosophical question (so no right or wrong answer cf. round or flat Earth) a person would be equally adept at arguing both sides. So if the question is: is God omnibenevolent they could adeptly argue either side of the argument. It was in passing in a novel many decades ago. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/10 "2025-09-15T18:16:46Z")
Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds? Or jesuitry? ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/11 "2025-09-15T20:16:32Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > a person would be equally adept at arguing both sides In formal debate practice isn’t it assumed that both teams can argue both sides of the question equally well? (I don’t have any experience of this kind of debating but I always thought that.) * * * > [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Devil’s advocate..? In the Catholic Church, during the canonization process (deciding whether to declare that someone is a saint), the Devils Avocate is the person appointed by the Pope to argue _against_ the cause of canonization, IOW to find out stuff that would disqualify the candidate for sainthood. For a great movie in which this figures, see _[The Third Miracle](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0174268/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1)_, featuring the divine and dreamy Ed Harris as one of my favorite stock characters, the “troubled priest.” Anne Heche is in it, too, as the daughter of the woman being proposed for sainthood. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/12 "2025-09-15T20:22:05Z")
Dialectical reasoning? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/13 "2025-09-15T21:54:35Z")
A classical example of sophistry: Sophist: Do you have a dog? Mark: Yes, a big mean one. Sophist: Does he have puppies? Mark: Yes, he has several. Sophist: So! The dog is a father, and he is yours. Therefore, _the dog is your father, and the puppies are your brothers_. Gotcha LOL ---
**Author:** ![FluffyBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@FluffyBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FluffyBob)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/14 "2025-09-15T23:07:26Z")
My philosophy majoring was well over three decades ago so..grain of salt and all. Playing Devil’s advocate is a common constructive technique in philosophical discussion. It may be used in an essay, but is more commonly used in friendly discussion or when developing an argument. Typically it would be used by a professor or instructor to help a student better understand a topic. Socratic Dialogue is the closest thing to what you describe I can think of, where Plato would tell a story with some character as the poor sucker stating their concept and the character of Socrates asking procedural questions that would lead to the the opponent’s self eviceration. I am unaware of an actual philosophical term or practice for what you are describing though. ---
**Author:** ![gkster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gkster/32/14107_2.png) [@gkster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gkster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2025, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/15 "2025-09-15T23:53:07Z")
Are you thinking of dialectic? > **[Dialectic - Wikipedia](https://www.google.com/share.google?q=y0nhhxqQEeAyjWtgz)** ---
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2025, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/16 "2025-09-16T00:12:40Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > In formal debate practice isn’t it assumed that both teams can argue both sides of the question equally well? (I don’t have any experience of this kind of debating but I always thought that.) Exactly. I did debate all four years of high school. In competition, whether you argued the affirmative or negative side of the topic was determined by a coin flip in each round. You were expected to be able to defend either side. It’s a very useful skill to develop. The best way to speak in favor of a cause that you support, is to be able to thoroughly understand the strongest arguments against it. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2025, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/17 "2025-09-16T01:11:18Z")
I think dialectic is the closest to what I’m thinking. I wish I could remember the story and reread that paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2025, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/18 "2025-09-16T12:21:32Z")
Isn’t this what they teach you in Law School? They want you to understand and be able to logically and vigorously argue both sides of legal question. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2025, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/19 "2025-09-16T13:56:53Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I think dialectic is the closest to what I’m thinking. I wish I could remember the story and reread that paragraph. Try describing what you remember to an LLM and see if it can identify it. Or ask the ‘good at SF story identification’ guy, if that’s applicable. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2025, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063/20 "2025-09-16T14:01:54Z")
I think I remember the context. A philosopher would stand in public and argue against a proposition given to him. Our two protagonists hear him arguing how the Earth goes around the Sun. One protagonist tells the other one he’s a sophist and watch this and says it’s true the Earth goes around the Sun. The philosopher immediately starts arguing the Sun goes around the Earth. At least that’s how I remember it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-philosophy-or-rhetoric-question/1023063.md?page=2)