Motte and bailey

[Masterhawk]

In the early medieval days, before the famed stone castle became mainstream, there was the motte and bailey castle.

It looks something like this:


The castle can be separated into two parts: the motte and bailey. The bailey encircled a village where people went about their daily lives. The motte was where people would retreat to when the motte was breached.

In argumentation, this is when someone makes an argument. Then when confronted on that argument, retreats to a much more agreeable one. This is the opposite of a strawman. A strawman is when you water down someone's argument into an easy one to debunk. Motte and bailey is a form of bait and switch which makes your argument appear stronger than it really is. The bailey is an extreme/controversial/ easily refutable argument while the motte is usually one that no sensible person would disagree with.

Here are some examples:

Alternative medicine peddler: This natural stuff will cure any ailment

you: Do you have any proof?

alternative medicine peddler: I mean it's harmless


Creationist: I believe in God of the Bible

you: any evidence?

Creationist: Ther has to have been an unmoved mover

Or for an extremely common one

Douchbag: *says something mean*

everyone else: How dare you!

Douchbag: I was only kidding


This is very common on the left. One thing that's very genius about their slogans is that they're coopted in a way that makes those who disagree with them out to be terrible people. Leftists often make extreme arguments only to turn back to something more agreeable when confronted and make the confronter look bigoted.


Bailey: Women only make three quarters to the dollar and it's because a woman's work is valued less than a man's

Motte: There are certain systemic factors that help maintain the glass ceiling


Bailey: LET'S START A RIOT!!!!!

Motte: Most demonstrators were peaceful. Do you not think that black lives matter or something?


Bailey: America was built on slavery.

you: Antebellum south's economy was certainly built on slavery while the north was not. Also, slavery was a very controversial issue for the first 80 years of American history.

Motte: Slavery played such a big role in American history. We should study it more to understand its historic effects on the black population.


Bailey: We can assume that morality is completely subjective.

Motte: Different cultures and individuals have a different view of morality.


The left isn't the only side wich uses this tactic. Conservatives often use it as well.

Bailey: We need to keep out immigrants. They've been taking our jobs and living on welfare.

you: And besides, immigrants pay more into cash-based programs than they get out. They can't take out benefits because that would risk them getting deported.

Motte: I don't mind immigrants who follow the law. We need to kick out illegal immigrants. They cost taxpayers in the form of healthcare and education.


Bailey: Homosexuals ought to be locked up. They are sinning against God.

Motte: We just want to protect family values. Marriage is between a man and a woman.


This is the premise behind dog whistle politics. What seems innocuous to most people can have a different meaning for selected groups of people. It's kind of a fusion between the bailey and the motte into one argument.

Bailey: Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

Motte: I just believe in states' rights (this argument is often used to justify policies that most wouldn't support)


Bailey: Venezuela is proof that socialism can survive in the long term

Motte: We never actually said that Venezuela was socialist. We were just cautiously optimistic that it could survive under global hypercapitalism. It's obviously not doing well under American sanctions.


Bailey: Trans women are really men who want to exert patriarchy within the feminist movement

Motte: We're just critical of the concept of gender

 

[Masterhawk]

This type of argument can be quite cumbersome to overcome. With a strawman, you simply have to explain your ideology better; straw-manning is not always done in bad faith. Sometimes, the one doing it doesn't understand what the concept is. Motte and bailey switch makes it difficult to continue the argument without sounding crazy or horrible. There are however a few ways that it can be done.


Call out the switch: Point out that your opponent was previously making bailey claims when he/she retreats to the motte. This is the typical way to deal with any logical fallacy. The only problem is that your opponent may still be able to make you look bad as if you were going for the motte.

Claim the bailey: Make it clear that you are not going for the motte. Don't let your opponent make you look like you're an authoritarian, racist, or a denier of common sense.

Go for the motte: Yet there are certain times when you can go for the stronger argument. You obviously cannot do this all of the time as that could make you out to be a horrible person. However, the strong version is not always impregnable. For example, when a peddler of alternative medicine goes from saying that their natural solution works to saying that it's a harmless placebo, you can point out that if it's a placebo, it's completely unnecessary and that sick people are better off not being taken advantage of by people selling false cures.

 

[Conaeolos]

In the early medieval days, before the famed stone castle became mainstream, there was the motte and bailey castle...

In my humble opinion, logical fallacies aren't a good way to argue only to note as areas to improve in one's own reasoning.

Let's take for example, your last example motte.

It's a harmless placebo, you can point out that if it's a placebo, it's completely unnecessary and that sick people are better off not being taken advantage of by people selling false cures.

That's not really true, placebos have been shown to help in a limited number of cases, even when by the way people know they are a placebo. A placebo can as a matter of fact be helpful compared to alternative with no cure (often true in cases of alternative medicine). Now there is certainly a difference between the man with the magic apples that cure cancer encouraging others to skip their doctor and the person with a homeopathic remedy for chronic migraines with mixed rates of success. This important distinction however will be lost if one's always rationalizing with mechanistic reductionism.

The real issue here is if said person is either profiting off deception or taken in by a con. In this way this logical fallacy deconstruction can certainly be a useful tool to counteract the gaslighting of a con for oneself, but is entirely ineffective at getting to the root of deception in others.The other may truly have found a cure and having no idea of how it works; tending to that nasty habit of constructing a story for that mystery.

Scepticism is an internal skill, applied too liberally however it prevents you seeing the best in others creating distrust, discord and a resistance to finding truth.

Let's take another of your examples:

Bailey: We need to keep out immigrants. They've been taking our jobs and living on welfare.

you: And besides, immigrants pay more into cash-based programs than they get out. They can't take out benefits because that would risk them getting deported.

Motte: I don't mind immigrants who follow the law. We need to kick out illegal immigrants. They cost taxpayers in the form of healthcare and education.

That would be a great thing to ponder in oneself if concerned by all immigrants. "Immigrants" may also in context (as viewed by the author) have been referring exclusively to illegal immigrants who don't pay more into cash-based programs than they get out. Advocates loving to conflated these extremely different groups to avoid the legitment concerns surrounding the very mysterious "illegal immigrant" group.

In this way, by attempting to apply this tool to others, you step right into the good-faith stawmanning. Like you said, something recoverable sure, but now you've indicated to the other person your certainly are not willing to steel-man their arguments, which I think we can agree is always the best approach.

 

[Masterhawk]

In my humble opinion, logical fallacies aren't a good way to argue only to note as areas to improve in one's own reasoning.

Let's take for example, your last example motte.

That's not really true, placebos have been shown to help in a limited number of cases, even when by the way people know they are a placebo. A placebo can as a matter of fact be helpful compared to alternative with no cure (often true in cases of alternative medicine). Now there is certainly a difference between the man with the magic apples that cure cancer encouraging others to skip their doctor and the person with a homeopathic remedy for chronic migraines with mixed rates of success. This important distinction however will be lost if one's always rationalizing with mechanistic reductionism.

The real issue here is if said person is either profiting off deception or taken in by a con. In this way this logical fallacy deconstruction can certainly be a useful tool to counteract the gaslighting of a con for oneself, but is entirely ineffective at getting to the root of deception in others. The other may truly have found a cure and having no idea of how it works; tending to that nasty habit of constructing a story for that mystery.

As someone once said, "placebos make you feel better but they won't cure you"

The power of the placebo effect - Harvard Health

Under the right circumstances, a placebo effect—in which the brain convinces the body a fake treatment is the real thing—can be as effective as traditional treatments....

www.health.harvard.edu

That would be a great thing to ponder in oneself if concerned by all immigrants. "Immigrants" may also in context (as viewed by the author) have been referring exclusively to illegal immigrants who don't pay more into cash-based programs than they get out. Advocates loving to conflated these extremely different groups to avoid the legitimate concerns surrounding the very mysterious "illegal immigrant" group.

Yet conservatives complain about chain migration (which is legal immigration). Trump also implemented visa limits in 2020. Also, immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. They can't claim social security because doing so would risk them getting deported. But they do pay payroll tax because they give fake social security numbers.

Also, conservatives rarely account for the costs of deporting 11.3 illegal immigrants.

 

[Conaeolos]

As someone once said, "placebos make you feel better but they won't cure you"

The power of the placebo effect - Harvard Health

Under the right circumstances, a placebo effect—in which the brain convinces the body a fake treatment is the real thing—can be as effective as traditional treatments....

www.health.harvard.edu

The article underlines my point.

Yet conservatives complain about chain migration (which is legal immigration). Trump also implemented visa limits in 2020. Also, immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. They can't claim social security because doing so would risk them getting deported. But they do pay payroll tax because they give fake social security numbers.

Also, conservatives rarely account for the costs of deporting 11.3 illegal immigrants.

The point was not to get into the topic of debate, but question if it's beneficial to look for logical fallacies in others arguments instead of just your own, instead simply choosing to steel-man and go straight at the motte. The first part asking if you find the motte weak probing into the persons meaning instead.

If you knew that and simply wanted to test it out. I am happy to argue the counter to any of your examples including this one to demonstrate how it's unproductive.