Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy
This cluster revolves around commenters identifying, explaining, and accusing each other of employing the motte-and-bailey fallacy, a rhetorical tactic involving switching between defensible and controversial positions, often with Wikipedia links.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
This is a motte/bailey bait and switch argument. Please refrain from doing so in further discourse.
Nice "motte-and-bailey" argument. But a little transparent, no ?
You are making a classic motte and bailey argument.
Unfortunately it's a discussion tactic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacyThe motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the &
This is a perfect example of a motte and bailey. The "motte" is that people should be judged badly for parroting horrible ideas they heard (which makes sense) and the "bailey" is that people should be praised just for parroting nice things they heard (which doesn't make sense).
this is the motte and bailey argument technique: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
Sounds like the inverse of the motte and bailey.[0]Someone claims the bailey is safe, response is to accuse them of advocating the motte.Can be solved in part by trying to get clarity on the terms, but that can bog down.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy ?
It's a very obvious example of a motte and bailey argument.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy