Encounters With 'Advocatus Diabolus'

Debate plays an invaluable role in pluralist liberal societies; it’s the means by which old notions are challenged, and the crucible in which new ideas are forged. However, it also serves to expose the more unsavoury undercurrents which, left unchecked, threaten the foundations of these same societies. In short, we need debate — to promote the good, to expose the bad, to maintain the very institutions and social mores which allow for free debate in the first place.

Despite this sentiment being fairly straightforward, it is routinely misunderstood by those who view debate as an end-in-itself and not the means it truly is. These often rather disagreeable types go by many names — ‘terminal debater’, ‘professional contrarian’, ‘outrage merchant’ — but, out of respect, I’ll stick with the label these argument junkies so often apply to themselves: ‘devil’s advocate’ — no relation with the Viewpoint column of the same name, whose quality is not subject to debate. 

Anyone who has had the misfortune of arguing with a self-described devil’s advocate likely recognises how perversely fitting that title is for describing these debaters from hell. That they almost invariably choose this label over any other might suggest an impressive level of self-awareness, if it weren’t for the fact that it disguises a much darker disposition. To illustrate this subterfuge and help you spot one in the wild, I offer the following representative field report documenting the average devil’s advocates typical ‘debating’ behaviour – though ‘debate’ is really misnomer; their ambushes rarely start off as well-intentioned constructive debates, nor do they ever develop the qualities of one. 

Instead, the devil’s advocate (latin name: Advocatus diabolus) lurks around a pub, office party, christening, or other typically non-combative setting, stalking potential prey with baited breath (I say ‘its’, though ‘his’ covers most cases.) Careful not to show its cards too early, it slowly closes in on an unsuspecting victim, lulling them into a false sense of security by engaging in light-hearted conversation. Once said conversation so much as brushes on a subject about which the devil’s advocate has a ‘hot-take’, it takes aim, selects its preferred offensive manoeuvre, and launches the opening salvo. Chief among its arsenal for baiting unsuspecting victims are such cunning techniques as ‘fauxgreement’, ‘just-asking-questions’, and ‘sock-puppet Socrates’. 

Fauxgreement, as the name suggests, involves initially agreeing with the sorry victim, only to undermine their point and derail the conversation entirely. The victim talks of the daily struggles of being a woman? Advocatus diabolus chimes in parroting exaggerated and almost parodic feminist rhetoric, only to slip in “of course, men have it really bad too.” The victim shares they’re taking a break from social media? Devil’s advocate commends them, launches into a soliloquy about how “social media is so exhausting these days,” only to pivot to “and it’s eroding traditional values, creating a generation of weak men.” 

Just-asking-questions (often shortened to ‘JAQ-ing off’ given the atrociously self-gratifying and one-sided nature of these ‘debates’) is another classic: Advocatus diabolus’ questions start innocuously enough but soon betray its true intentions. “I’m just curious, what do you mean by ‘non-binary’?” quickly becomes “So, why define yourself according to a binary if gender is a spectrum, anyway?” — a fair question perhaps but deserving of a careful reply, which the poor trapped soul won’t be allowed to give, not uninterrupted anyway. If the victim displays even the slightest hesitation, resistance, or — God forbid — stutters in their reply, the JAQ-off deploys its cloak of curiosity: Advocatus diabolus is simply asking questions, it just ‘wants to know.’ Be assured it will judge its victim as woefully unintelligent or intentionally obstructive if they don’t answer in exactly the way it wants.

Sock-puppet Socrates acts as a similar ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card. Rather than presenting a shockingly ill-informed and wildly inflammatory take as its own, the advocate hides behind someone it thinks commands respect or authority – so, usually Jordan B. Peterson or Nietzsche if Nietzche were made up exclusively of Nietzche’s worst-sounding, badly-paraphrased, quotes. Curiously, the advocate also believes it gets bonus points for subtly ‘nuancing’ the sock-puppet take. Here, we must note the advocate’s impressive ability to cook up entirely novel arguments to justify an opinion it swears (unconvincingly) it hasn’t thought much about — “No, Kyle, I don’t think homosexuality is bad because you think it caused the collapse of the Roman Empire.”

These tactics perfectly encapsulate Advocatus diabolus’ nature and offer a reliable preview for the ensuing ‘debate’ into which it has ensnared its hapless victim. It will continuously claim the purest of intentions yet invariably behave itself in a way that betrays its sinister disposition. It will seek to get a rise out of its victim, then charge them with being overly emotional; it will constantly move goalposts but force the victim to respond succinctly to complex pedantic inquiries; it will accuse them of committing all kinds of logical fallacies, yet drop slippery-slope after whataboutism. What’s more: Advocatus diabolus never loses — not by its own lights, anyway. Sensing defeat, it retreats behind one of its familiar smokescreens, resorts to mockery, or denies ever having taken its position seriously. If — perish the thought — its sensors malfunction, it simply plows on, claiming a pyrrhic victory when its exhausted victim inevitably withdraws, “a sure sign of intellectual inferiority” thinks the advocate. But, truly: what good is ‘winning’ an argument no one wanted to have?

Of course, it is unsurprising that Advocatus diabolus advocates in bad faith, after all the Devil is its client, though God knows he never asked to be. But why does the advocate consistently offer its impassioned yet entirely pro-bono advocacy to the most ludicrous, inflammatory, and downright horrific clients? Is it out of a generous liberal spirit to diversify the marketplace of ideas? No, Advocatus diabolus doesn’t champion all fringes equally. Instead, it exhibits a distinct preference for the causes it feels are most venomous, curiously selecting only those which suit its own reactionary temperament. Such is the reason we scarcely find self-proclaimed devil’s advocates for gender abolitionism, reparations, or land redistribution, yet your average university town appears to be positively teeming with JAQ-offs snarling in defense of traditional gender roles, vaccine scepticism, and ‘law and order’— all ironically (and regrettably) mainstream, mind you.

Still, this polemical parasite’s periodic emergence from its mancave might, on balance, be judged salutary, if only because this exposes its views to public scrutiny. Sunlight, after all, is the best disinfectant, and Heaven knows the lesser-spotted Advocatus diabolus needs sunlight. But, it is equally true that mold thrives in the open air. Sometimes, dignifying the advocate with a platform simply normalises its opinions, allowing the weeds of its putrid perspectives to take root. 

Thankfully, the course of action is clear: when you spot a devil’s advocate, engage with caution, don’t fall for its tricks, and above all, regularly monitor your symptoms – a sudden proclivity for polemics, abnormal appetite for argumentation, or distinctly foul odour are all telltale signs of infection. Trust me, you do not want to become a devil’s advocate, such a beast is better off extinct. 

Illustration by Maya Mason