The devil’s advocate was originally a position in the Catholic Church. It was a position held by someone who was expected to come up with reasons why an individual should not be canonized or beatified. The practice dates back to the sixteenth century.
Today, people announce very proudly they like to “play” devil’s advocate. This is usually men, naturally. It’s not terribly different from notifying the room that you’re a libertarian. It’s been my observation that the person announcing it just likes how it sounds.
The contemporaneous meaning is a person who adopts the view opposite yours to merely create a debate. They do not necessarily hold that view. They just, for the moment, adopt that view for sport. It’s exhausting.
The topic is commonly an important one and when it comes to history, politics, social issues, and so on, we need to get these things right. Lives and human suffering are at stake. These subjects should not simply serve as grist for the mill, as something to debate, casually.
Men who relish playing devil’s advocate typically do not have anything to say. They just want to play ping pong, and sound smart—but they do not. And then here comes the announcement: “I just like to play devil’s advocate.” Do they think it makes them sound deep, interesting, they just like the phrase?
It’s best if we take a position, learn about that position, and grasp how to strengthen that position. Maybe your position is weak. Then you either make adjustments or drop it altogether and admit your view is thin and not worth defending. The definitive argument on this is John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” He does a masterful job of explaining the importance of torture-testing your opinions. It’s a great book, and very, very short. It’s really more of an essay.
So, when your blowhard uncle makes the announcement, brace yourself for maximum BS. I might avoid him all together. Getting an adult conversation out of him will be close to impossible. You deserve better—and so do the issues.
