What is "devil's advocate"

1760, translating Latin advocatus diaboli, one whose job it is to urge against the canonization of a candidate for sainthood. "[F]ar from being the whitewasher of the wicked, the [devil's advocate] is the blackener of the good." [Fowler]

n. 1 (context idiomatic English) One who debates from a view which he or she may not actually hold, usually to determine its validity or simply for the sake of argument. 2 (qualifier: Roman Catholic Church) A canon lawyer appointed by the church to argue against the canonization of the proposed candidate.

n. someone who takes the worse side just for the sake of argument

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on and playing the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses, if possible, in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance. The background of this word comes from an official position within the Catholic Church, in which a canon lawyer called the Advocatus Diaboli ( Latin for "Devil's Advocate"), also known as the Promoter of Faith, "argued against the canonization ( sainthood) of a candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation evidence favoring canonization."

Devil's advocate is someone who takes a position they do not necessarily agree with for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

Devil's Advocate may also refer to:

Devil's Advocate is a Dutch reality television series produced by AVRO, an Amsterdam-based production company, and shown on Nederland 2, a public broadcaster. It stars defense attorney Gerard Spong, who attempts to convince a jury and studio audience of the innocence of some of the world's worst criminals.

The 8 April 2009 show created controversy when the jury ruled that there was not enough evidence to convict Osama bin Laden of leading al-Qaeda or of masterminding the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Spong had argued during the show that bin Laden was a victim of "Western propaganda." The story was broken in the United States by the Hollywood Reporter.