In political discourse, if-by-whiskey is a relativist fallacy where the response to a question is contingent on the questioner's opinion. An if-by-whiskey argument affirms both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the questioner supports.

It refers to a 1952 speech by a young Mississippi lawmaker, Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr., on the subject of whether Mississippi should prohibit or legalize alcoholic beverages:

"If by whiskey, you mean the water of life that cheers men's souls, that smooths out the tensions of the day, that gives gentle perspective to one's view of life, then put my name on the list of the fervent wets.

"But if by whiskey, you mean the devil's brew that rends families, destroys careers and ruins one's ability to work, then count me in the ranks of the dries."

Columnist and amateur linguist William Safire popularized the term in his column in The New York Times, but wrongly attributed it to Florida Governor Fuller Warren.