The Problem with “Devil’s Advocate” in Serious Debates

When Objectivity Becomes a Moral Blind Spot

Image created on Canva

I speak from experience when I say there’s nothing more annoying than debating someone who is arguing in bad faith. There’s a particular type of person who loves to debate and, in doing so, reveals themselves to be cold, unsympathetic, and desperate for validation as “so smart” because they can remain emotionally detached when discussing controversial topics.

They throw out lines like “playing devil’s advocate” or “I’m just asking questions,” as if these phrases are as impressive as flashing a black Amex card.

They feign indifference, posing questions that serve no purpose other than to derail the conversation or create controversy. These individuals aren’t invested in the issue, have no skin in the game, and seem to take pride in playing the contrarian on topics with real, tangible consequences for people’s lives.

The Problem with Objectivity

One of the core issues with the “devil’s advocate” approach is that people who employ it often think they’re demonstrating logical sophistication. They argue that their so-called “objectivity” is a virtue because they aren’t swayed by emotions, personal interests, or biases. They claim they can consider both sides of an…