At its core, playing the devil’s advocate means deliberately arguing against a prevailing opinion to test its strength and reveal hidden assumptions.



The expression dates back to the 16th‑century Catholic Church where the Promoter of the Faith (Latin advocatus diaboli) was appointed to critically examine candidates for sainthood. This official had to uncover everything unfavorable to the candidate so that only truly deserving individuals were canonized. Today the term is used more broadly to describe anyone who challenges popular ideas “for the sake of argument”. While the origin may be centuries old, modern educators, leaders and debate platforms still rely on this role to stimulate critical thinking and prevent groupthink.

Why Devil’s Advocate Matters in Debate and Decision‑Making

Modern organizations often strive for harmony, yet too much consensus can lead to complacency. Appointing a devil’s advocate helps teams justify ideas with evidence, surface hidden risks and encourage creative alternatives. This deliberate dissent leads to better decisions. Many graduate debaters who engage in critical reviews of decisions and strategy (constructively and deeply, of course) manage to take far greater decisions. From our network, these candidates are all in high and performing roles in their respective companies and industries.

From our research, this is supported by scholars of group decision‑making. A study by Ahkmad, Shuang & Deguchi in 2021 found that groupthink results in low‑quality outcomes, and that introducing devil’s advocacy can alleviate groupthink and increase exploration of alternatives. In other words, a well‑executed devil’s advocate reduces confirmation bias and encourages a more rigorous evaluation of ideas.



Educators Leverage Devil's Advocate To Improve Their Classes

In education, devil’s‑advocate exercises promote intellectual humility and empathy. Many teachers and coaches use Devil’s Advocate as a structured exercise where students argue against a commonly accepted position, forcing them to engage deeply with opposing arguments. We as humans, often feel safer within opinions that we know, but when we take time to analyze opposing viewpoints—even if artificially adopted—it reduces ideological polarization and makes students more open‑minded.

By stepping into the role of the skeptic, learners develop deeper content comprehension and better problem‑solving skills. These benefits transfer beyond the classroom: legal, business and STEM fields all value professionals who can evaluate multiple perspectives and articulate well‑reasoned counterarguments.



Constructive vs. Destructive Advocacy

Not all contrarian behavior is helpful. It is important to remain within what is beneficial and for you and the object analyzed. Constant naysayers “become a broken record” and lose influence. Effective devil’s advocates ask probing questions, propose alternatives and stimulate constructive conflict instead of merely rejecting ideas.

Rotating the role prevents one person from being marginalized and encourages fresh perspectives. Timing also matters: during early brainstorming, criticism can stifle idea generation, so leaders should postpone devil’s advocacy until multiple options are on the table. When the time comes, advocates should adopt a Socratic style, asking open‑ended questions like “How might we strengthen this proposal?”, and focus on improving ideas rather than winning arguments.



Best Practices for Debating as a Devil’s Advocate

1. Define the scope. Begin by clearly stating the proposition or policy you will challenge. The devil’s advocate should understand the mainstream position and its supporting evidence before formulating objections.
2. Ask for evidence. In meetings, devil’s advocates scrutinize assumptions by requesting data and clarifications, helping teams avoid superficial consensus. The goal is to test the robustness of ideas, not to derail the discussion.
3. Propose alternatives. Effective advocates offer constructive options rather than simply highlighting flaws. For example, if a proposal seems risky, suggest modifications or different approaches to achieve the same goals.
4. Focus on reasoning, not personalities. Keep criticism directed at ideas, not people. Avoid dismissive language or sarcasm, which can create defensiveness and hinder dialogue.
5. Listen actively. Encouraging active listening helps participants consider divergent views and integrate them into decision‑making.
6. Rotate the role. Rotating the devil’s advocate prevents fatigue and ensures that diverse perspectives are represented.



Practicing Devil’s Advocate on VersyTalks

VersyTalks is a debate platform that encourages critical thinking and empathy by allowing participants to take on the devil’s advocate role deliberately. Here’s how the feature works:

Choosing the role.

When joining a debate, users can indicate that they wish to argue as a devil’s advocate. This option is ideal for those seeking to hone their argumentation skills or challenge their biases by defending an opposing view. On VersyTalks, each debater can select this role up to three times per month, providing ample opportunities to practice without overwhelming the community.

Premium badges.

Using all three devil’s‑advocate slots in a month earns a special badge and icon on your profile. This recognition highlights your commitment to balanced discourse and your willingness to examine multiple perspectives. Badges act as a conversation starter, signaling to other users that you value constructive dissent and intellectual humility.

Structured debates.

VersyTalks debates are organized around clear resolutions. When you select the devil’s advocate option, the system pairs you with an opponent representing the mainstream position. You’ll have preparation time to research both sides and craft reasoned arguments. After the debate, participants often reflect on insights gained from defending an unfamiliar stance.

Developing unbiasing skills.

Playing devil’s advocate regularly trains you to recognize your own cognitive biases and reduces susceptibility to confirmation bias. Studies on perspective‑taking show that arguing for positions you initially disagree with fosters open‑mindedness and reduces polarization. By practicing this on VersyTalks, debaters cultivate empathy and learn to evaluate the merits of diverse viewpoints, skills essential for leadership, policy debates and collaborative problem‑solving.

Conclusion

Adopting opposing perspectives fosters intellectual humility and reduces ideological polarization. To reap these benefits, debaters should challenge ideas respectfully, propose alternatives and listen actively. Platforms like VersyTalks make it easy to practice devil’s advocacy in a structured, supportive environment.