I'm a little tired right now and I might regret even typing this post later, but you don't know 'till you do it I guess.
I figured out why I think some people who claim they present a position they don't actually agree with out of some kind of "devil's advocacy" or "intellectual exercise" are actually just arguing their own position. It's in the wording.
Example: Someone (let's call them Final Rolemodel) is currently partaking in an Internet conversation over racism in video games, and they feel that "being a devil's advocate" is called for. If they ask the opposition "why do you think it's bad to allow gamers to have racist dialogue options towards these nonwhite characters in this game that's not set on a historical Earth period where racism was rampant", then I, the person reading the conversation, could conceivably buy that they're just arguing from that position out of an interest to advance thought or whatever. But if they instead said "why do you think black characters should be treated with kiddy gloves" then at that point I'd start raising an eyebrow.