It sounds like preemptive arguments.
From Merriam-Webster's definition of preemptive:
4 : marked by the seizing of the initiative : initiated by oneself
// a preemptive attack
From "Framing an argument" by Biljana Scott:
Pre-emptive arguments
A salient use of pre-emptive arguments involves the recognition and acknowledgment of the opposing position, maybe sympathising and even identifying with it, but then showing why the particular circumstances demand the alternative approach being proposed. This framing strategy is illustrated by sequences such as the following, in which all the propositions preceding the ‘but’ act as acknowledgements which the following statement overrules:
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said… I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak ... in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their example alone. I face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats.
… There is a two-fold advantage to this counterbalancing dynamic. The first is that the speaker appears both well-informed and well-reasoned in so far as he presents his views not as assertions, but as the more considered choice. Secondly, a pre-emptive move is in evidence, since the argument being rejected anticipates likely responses to the one being proposed, and deals with them there and then.
anticipated counterargument
,term for anticipating opposing arguments
, and half a dozen other variations without success; or, less likely but still quite possible, they might even have searched for exactly the same thing you did and gotten different results.