Motte and Bailey

The Fallacy

Conflating two positions: one modest and easy to defend (the Motte), and one controversial (the Bailey).

Why it's wrong

The arguer advances a controversial claim (the Bailey). When challenged, they retreat to the defensible, obvious claim (the Motte), insisting that's all they meant. Once the critic retreats, the arguer reclaims the Bailey. It's a strategic equivocation where a person uses the Motte to defend the Bailey.

Example

Person A: 'All medicine is poison!' (Bailey). Person B: 'That's absurd, antibiotics save lives.' Person A: 'I simply meant that all medicines have side effects and should be used with caution.' (Motte). Person B: 'Well, that's true.' Person A: 'See? That's why you should never take any pills.' (Back to Bailey).

Back to All Fallacies