What is the formal term in philosophy for someone who argues a point strategically rather than factually?

Question

You know, someone who uses sort of falsely constructed arguments to win on points rather than with valid conclusions.

Thank you.

Answer 1

Most often such tactics are called rhetoric.

"...rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions..."

Answer 2

apodictic or dialectical reasoning, or obfuscation? There could be many words to describe it, but it all comes down to knowing how to make use of fallacies. Someone who has studied the forms of fallacies could do it quite well, and his opponent would know what he was doing in some cases, but would have no idea what to do. Sophists use fallacies.

a straw man argument is another means

Answer 3

rhetoric

Answer 4

Beating around the bush. :)

Answer 5

A Sophist.   This term comes from a group of ancient Greeks, who were teachers of rhetoric.  Their opinion was that what is really important is argumentation, not achieving truth.  They studied the art of argument rather than using philosophical principles to attempt to approximate truth.  

Socrates was depicted by Plato as an opponent of the Sophists and strongly disagreed with their methods.

If someone with whom you are arguing seems to be doing this, a response could be "That is mere sophistry..."

"Sophistication" on the other hand, though it has the same root, has taken on a very different connotation.  "Sophistry" is seen negatively, but "Sophistication" is often a positive thing that means something like "thourough, well thought-out, penetrating, etc."

Answer 6

I was also thinking of the word "Sophist." These ancient itinerant philosophers loved teaching others how to make the worse argument appear better, for a fee, of course.