Part of the high school experience is meeting Dr. Devil’s-Advocate; “Just to play devil’s advocate, what if female voting really is what has destroyed our political ecosystem”—I wish I were joking when I say that is a real quote from a real man who was in my sociology class. Dr. Devil’s-Advocate “totally” isn’t racist or sexist or homophobic, he’s just playing the devil’s advocate. Dr. Devil’s-Advocate will assure you that he (he, for my purposes but Dr. Devil’s-Advocate can be a she or a they) totally doesn’t actually believe in the things he’s saying, while he argues in favor of discrimination or eugenics or slavery. By the way, when I say “devil’s advocate” I don’t mean people who are simply willing to point out nuanced —albeit uncomfortable— sides to a given argument in a respectful way, nor do I mean people who are just preparing for all sides of a debate—no, I mean those who wield “devil’s advocate” as a shield, an excuse to air their bigoted, or extremist views while maintaining plausible deniability. Basically, just think of Dr. Devil’s-Advocate as the equally annoying cousin to Mr.Just-a-Joke-Bro (note: these two are sometimes the same person).

Now, what I really want to address in my writing today is how devil’s advocates negatively affect the learning environment and politics en masse, how to spot this behavior, and what can be done about it.

Some might dismiss this behavior as merely annoying, but I’d argue it’s actively harmful. For starters, let me introduce you to the illusory truth effect—a psychological phenomenon in which people start believing an idea simply because they hear it repeatedly, even when presented with contradicting evidence. This is how devil’s advocacy spreads: like a plague, infecting more and more high-spirited teenagers. It plants the seeds of misinformation, which take root in contrarianism and bloom into full-fledged denial—because, as Mark Twain said, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. Ever had some missionary approach you in public, eager to convert you to a doctrine you’ve never heard of? That’s kind of what it’s like to be in class with Dr. Devil’s-Advocate. Like the most persistent evangelist, if he can’t pull you into the hive mind, he’ll settle for undermining every argument you might ever make. His ever-spreading neurosis doesn’t end in the classroom. He makes his way into workplaces, religion, politics and even your family dinner —he, of course, has a political agenda for every thanksgiving. Personally, I think I prefer him confined to the classroom, anywhere else and he quickly becomes cause for a scene.

If the very existence of this article doesn’t make it obvious, I have many personal qualms with devil’s advocates—not any one individual, but just this personality type as a whole. And my concerns go much deeper than just personal annoyance; they stem from how increasingly common this mindset has become, often among teenagers—particularly adolescent boys. Many of these young men develop an obsession with anti-feminism, alt-right rhetoric, male supremacy, inceldom, and general “edgelord” attitudes. This fixation erodes their ability to think critically—suddenly, they care less about what is true and more about what makes them seem rebellious, different, or superior. Part of this phenomenon is fueled by media—podcasts, alt-right influencers, and incel forums that convince young men that all their struggles are caused by women, queer people, or racial minorities. But it’s also enabled by society at large. Mothers, aunts, girlfriends—sometimes even teachers—excuse this behavior with the good ol’: “Boys will be boys,” even when the “boy” in question is well into entering adulthood. Of course, it’s not just men; women and gender-queer folks can also end up in these circles, drawn in by extremist movements, political figures, or influencers with radical ideals that reinforce their views. This polarization is, in part, a product of how American politics operate—sometimes it feels like you’ll say “I love dogs,” only for someone to respond, “Oh, so you want to kill all cats?!” And then we wonder why our youth seem increasingly extremist. This kind of thinking also serves as a gateway to fringe conspiracy theories—Holocaust denialism, flat-earthism, anti-vaccine rhetoric, and more. The danger here is that once someone falls into a conspiracy mindset, they begin rejecting obvious evidence, conditioning themselves to ignore critical thinking altogether. And when enough people stop valuing evidence and reason, our entire political system suffers. From there, desensitization sets in. If someone can convince themselves that NASA is lying about the shape of the Earth, it becomes easier for them to accept other outdated, harmful belief systems—racism, sexism, medical denialism. And these aren’t just abstract ideas; real people suffer under policies influenced by these bigoted ideologies. Worse still, this form of devil’s advocacy creates an environment where marginalized people feel unsafe—not just in classrooms but in political spaces as a whole. Many start to feel that engaging in these discussions at all puts them at risk of verbal harassment or even physical violence.

The big problem with devil’s advocacy in politics is that it insists upon a new form of conversation, something that I like to call non-debatable debate; this is when someone acts as though they’re attempting to engage in true debate when, in reality, they’re doing whatever they can to inhibit their opponent’s ability to respond to them. This is especially harmful to those who are young or inexperienced in debate or politics as this can make them feel as though they are somehow stupid for being unable to counter bad-faith arguments. So how do we know when someone is arguing in bad-faith? There are many ways, but there are some classic red flags: straw-man, slippery slope, ad hominem, red herring, no true Scotsman, gaslighting, tone policing.

You likely learned about logical fallacies like the straw-man, slippery slope, ad hominem, and red herring in English class at some point, so I’ll keep it brief (feel free to skip this paragraph). The straw-man is when someone distorts your argument into an exaggerated version of what it’s meant to be then they attack that straw-man instead of you. The slippery slope follows a similar pattern, except instead of twisting your claim itself, your opponent will exaggerate the consequences: “If we do X, then Y will happen, which will certainly lead to Z, and before you know it, we’ll all be living in a nuclear war zone.” Then there’s ad hominem, the childish fallback of someone who has no real counterpoint so they just insult you instead. And, of course, the red herring, which I like to call the “look over there!” tactic. This is when your opponent, rather than addressing your argument, drags in something completely unrelated to throw you off course. Some bad-faith tactics are more subtle; take the no true Scotsman approach—the “holier than thou” if you will. it’s much like ad hominem, but instead of outright name-calling, your opponent will either subtly imply that you are a bad person or slip in reasons why they are a good person in an attempt to earn brownie points from spectators by being morally superior. Then there’s gaslighting, which is usually associated with psychological abuse but has its place in political debate as well. If you’ve ever had someone claim that a well-documented event never happened, or insist you’re “crazy” for believing a known fact, congratulations, you’ve been gaslit. And finally, there’s the tone police, the favorite tool of the opponent who wants to dismiss you without actually acknowledging your argument; this tactic is especially common with men used against women as men arguing in bad-faith may try to make their female competitors seem too emotional and therefore unreliable.

So, now that we can recognize some classic bad-faith arguments, let’s talk about some ways to address them. When an opponent attempts to use a straw-man, slippery slope, or a red herring argument against you, make sure that you repeatedly and clearly state your stance. Make sure you’ve researched your position well and, most of all, call them out. Bad-faith debaters thrive on their opponents’ discomfort or inexperience. Take up space. Call them out. When dealing with ad hominem or the “holier than thou” tactics, resist the urge to insult them back. People hurling insults will look immature. Set yourself apart by being the bigger person, repeatedly remind them that the insults and shade they throw is irrelevant to the topic, it is possible to show that you are not meek while also showing that you can rise above childishness and facetiousness. When dealing with people who gaslight you or police your tone keep three things in mind: know your facts, know your feelings, and know how your facts support your feelings. Make sure that your facts are from reliable sources and that you know them very well, don’t let your opponent claim that your facts are wrong without providing evidence to the contrary, it’s not always bad to be emotional in a debate just don’t allow it to stop you from getting your points across clearly—be aware of what you’re feeling and especially, how the facts justify the way you feel, do not let your opponent say you’re being too emotional without acknowledging what it is that you’re emotional about. But keep in mind, if your opponent is arguing in bad-faith and being a devil’s advocate, it does not mean you’re admitting defeat by choosing to disengage, sometimes the argument just isn’t worth it.

Also keep in mind, sometimes you may be the devil’s advocate without realizing it, so think critically about your stance, use reliable sources, and don’t be afraid to change your mind when presented with new information. Your opinion doesn’t have to be popular but it should be backed up with evidence—remember that correlation doesn’t equal causation and being contrarian isn’t a personality trait. Don’t be afraid to call out bad-faith debaters, and do your best to listen when someone else calls you out; be self-aware.

Now that we’ve discussed the dangers of devil’s advocates and how to spot their tactics in an argument, let’s talk about what we can do as a whole. As a society, we need to delegitimize people who use devil’s advocacy as a cover for airing bigoted views. We must recognize that this form of “debate” poisons any real chance of middle ground; it sows division while pretending to solve it. Teachers and other authority figures must also be willing to call out this behavior. Yes, educators should create a safe space where all sides of an argument can be discussed, but they should also be able to recognize when a student is using devil’s advocacy as a vehicle for bigotry or attention-seeking. In those cases, they must step in and shut down any bullying disguised as discourse.

Perhaps the best thing we can do to halt bad-faith debate is doing our research, misinformation can only be combated with reliable information. Educate yourself and your friends, be willing to have respectful conversations, check your own biases, admit when you’re wrong, and don’t be afraid to call out the devil’s advocate; look at every argument from all sides, but don’t let yourself fall into using bad-faith tactics. Unfortunately, high school isn’t the last place you’ll encounter Dr. Devil’s-Advocate. But hopefully, it’s the last place you meet him unprepared. The next time he tries to derail a discussion, be aware: you don’t have to play his game. Learn to recognize bad-faith tactics, refuse to engage with manufactured outrage, and raise the standard for real discourse. Remember, Dr. Devil’s-Advocate isn’t really a doctor of anything—just a contrarian with too much free time.