Thread with 2 posts
jump to expanded post
stop me if i'm saying something silly here. the motte-and-bailey fallacy is basically a variant of the strawman fallacy, right? the difference is that normally you strawman your opponent's argument, whereas with motte-and-bailey you misrepresent your own argument.
hell, the motte-and-bailey can be a normal strawman even, in that you're strawmanning your opponent's response to your original argument.
i'm not missing something here, right? it's just weird to me that their respective wikipedia pages don't link to eachother…
(rolls eyes and gestures dramatically, looks to audience) wow, can you believe this? i never said it was a variant of the strawman fallacy. how can you argue there's no similarity in how these fallacies involve misrepresentation of a claim…