I have encountered many uses of sophistry in philosophical arguments but, with one exception, I can't recall anyone ever using sophistry merely to win a debate. In informal discussions philosophers may resort to sophistry when reason alone fails to persuade, but in my experience such philosophers still believed in the truth of what they were trying to persuade their interlocutors of, so it was not a question of mere victory in a debate. The lone exception was a law student, which I guess reflects the different concerns of lawyers arguing a case in a courtroom.

I should add a point of clarification regarding something that often confuses nonphilosophers. Philosophers may appear to be arguing for something they don't believe in, say Q, when they are actually arguing that Q follows from or is consistent with something else, say P. So the target isn't Q, but rather if-P-then-Q. One can believe that if-P-then-Q is true without believing that P is true or that Q is truth.

Karl Pfeifer ,

I agree with you on how different lawyers look at things. I was reading a case involving an intellectual property dispute that caught me by surprise. The controversy on appeal was the interpretation of the 'or' in a patent claim. The judge ruled in favor of one of the parties since the common use of the or for him was that of the exclusive or and not the logical or. something that can be totally at odds with those who study logic.

Paulinus Ikechukwu Ogara,

I bring this point on the law student brought by Karl as a good point to reflect on colliding notions of truth between scientists, philosophers and practitioners of law. While I would say that scientist hold that the pursuit of truth leads to only one true outcome, this is not necessarily the view that can be held by law practitioners. A view that has been shared with me by law professionals (I have done expert testimony in court) is that the truth is distributed among the perceivers of the facts. Reconstruction from these facts is not always necessarily possible in most cases. What can be hoped at most is a partial reconstruction of facts and that is what can be held as truth. I think this is a healthy posture that should be embraced by scientists since our current knowledge is limited. We should always be open to revise our current knowledge. Though, using fallacious arguments is not the way to prove ones point in science or philosophy.

My concluding thought in this post is that embracing truth is not as straightforward as it seems. Sometimes both parties argue that they hold the truth because they assume premises as true. They may both argue logically but they just disagree on premises and cannot reconcile them, at which point (as has happened many times on RG) it usually turns into a contest that needs winning.

Regards

It's not just the logical "or" that's inclusive. There are lots of uses of inclusive "or" in ordinary English too:

"I'd rather have fish for supper tonight than chicken or pork" entails "I'd rather have fish for supper tonight than chicken" and "I'd rather have fish for supper tonight than pork."

Interesting perspectives. Thank you @Karl Pteifer and Arturo Geigel for your contributions.