I have no idea who that is but maybe he meant that people are inclined to dryly answer philosophical questions at the beginning and to defend the answers. So when someone says “Is it right to kill in self defense?” a beginner in philosophy would just say “yes” or “no” and try to justify their answers afterwards whereas a non beginner would maybe ask “what counts as self defense?” “Should killing be justified in self defense even when it is likely that one would be able to defend themselves without killing?” Etc. I think he was saying that the more you do philosophy the more simple answers become a rarity.