The Devil's Prosecutor

Of all the forms of debate I have been exposed to, I am afraid I have yet to make peace with devil’s advocate. Whilst it can certainly be used as a useful tool to improve debating skills, processing speeds, and the quality of rebuttals, I would argue that in order to create as constructive an environment as possible, there needs to be more emphasis on adhering to the full Cambridge definition when engaging in these discussions. In accordance with this, the devil’s advocate should be ‘someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail’. Namely within this, I feel the idea of ‘pretence’ needs to be addressed.

As stated by Maya Rupert in her article for Slate magazine;“I'm Done Debating Racism with the Devil,” whether or not a person considers themselves to be impartial becomes obsolete once they feel prepared to broach certain topics. Rupert’s examples centre on the use of devil’s advocate when addressing humanitarian issues in the same way in which one may address a political issue, and naturally racism becomes the focal point of the article. In her own experiences, devil’s advocate had caused a huge amount of stress due to the implication, however theoretical, that the natural rights of Black people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were a topic for discussion and discourse, rather than inalienable human rights. Another danger lies in those who warp the definition of devil’s advocate in order to suit their own cause, hiding their own genuine prejudice under the guise of ‘theoretical’ debate.

This poses two central problems; the first is the unnecessary and sometimes crippling pressure on an individual advocate for a humanitarian cause having to defend the very existence of the cause they are arguing for against those who misuse and abuse the position of devil’s advocate. The second is the lack of opportunity for retort against those who may be using the façade of the devil to put forth their own genuine opinions, measure response, and respond accordingly. The ‘I’m just kidding’ of playground teasing has become the ‘I’m playing devil’s advocate’ of adult life, though they still have one thing in common - the ability to end the conversation and have any further comment disregarded, regardless of how founded the objection to the advocate’s line of questioning may be.

Naturally, the question remains: if others treat something as a political issue, surely it is best to be prepared to debate it like one too? Whilst accepting that it would be myopic to say that humanitarian issues did not have political connotations or implications, it could be said that any person who strays unknowingly from dual-faceted political issues into a potential ad-hominem and prejudiced attack may not be best qualified to pose a counter to an argument. More to the point, this raises the question of whether or not we are focussing on the correct side of the argument in terms of which needs to make reforms to accommodate the other. For the sake of clarity, perhaps a more boundaried approach where a number of pre-requisites are acknowledged (in a similar way to most standard debates) with a basis in empirical fact, would lay the foundations for a more constructive, less exasperating run-in with the devil.