Then if-by-whisky fallacy occurs when an arguer purports to be taking a clear stand on an issue when really their rhetoric has alternated between both sides of that issue.

The most famous example is the one that gives this fallacy its name. In 1952, Noah Sweat said the following in his speech on the floor of the Mississippi State Legislature, during debate over the prohibition of whiskey:

You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, this is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

Politics is probably the sphere wherein it is most common to find the "if-by-whisky" form of argument.

Here is another example:

"Am I for or against abortion rights? If by abortion rights you mean permitting harrowing procedures that kill babies needlessly, then I am against abortion rights. But if by abortion rights you mean permitting the termination of some ill-advised pregnancies based on well-informed decisions of rational individuals, then I am in favor of abortion rights. This is my stance."

This does not really tell us where the arguer stands on the issue of abortion, despite that the arguer claims to have taken a stance on the issue.