Most probably because someone didn't get the sarcasm contained in the speech.
No. The speech is a clear characterization of the fallacy because it's deliberately exaggerated and sarcastic.
I considered this possibility but I think it is false because this kind of fallacy just doesn't occur in real life. I find it more believable that the author was just trying to ridicule the exaggerated rhetoric of both sides.
Because the answers to "if -by whiskey" you mean this, or you mean that, render the argument that alcohol should be banned as unsound. One can argue equally each side of the argument depending on the definition of alcohol they choose.
I guess it could be considered very similar to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
"If by scotsman you mean..."
Not sure what it has to do on the frontpage though.
Well I think thats cause on the one hand a supporter might consider " the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together..." as true while another might consider "the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence" as true. Depending on ones opinion something is true for one but not true for another. A person might only be able to see their own side of things without allowing other opinions. So I guess fallacy is a somewhat appropriate term here:)