Reverse straw man

The reverse straw man fallacy is the opposite of the straw man fallacy. It is also called an iron man fallacy [1] (not to be confused with steel man [2]) or a Motte-and-bailey fallacy[3]. Consider two propositions:

• A, which is hard to attack ;
• B, which is easy to attack.

Whereas the straw man fallacy consists in attacking proposition A by attacking instead proposition B, the reverse straw man consists in defending proposition B by defending proposition A.

It’s a form of non sequitur: accepting A would imply to accept B, or a form of equivocation.

In its extreme form (antonym fallacy), proposition B is the exact opposite of A, thus akin to the Schrödinger’s razor fallacy (defending A and non-A at the same time).

The reverse straw man then consists in getting a proposition accepted by arguing in favor of its opposite, by playing on definitions, using intermediate anti-conceptual definitions (definition by non-essentials) or even intellectual package dealings.

Examples

borders

examples

• Borders Limit Freedom but Promote Liberty
• We Need More Borders and More States

imperialism, anti-war

• Kremlintarianism

proper government

• Proper government

See also

• No true Scotsman
• http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/170907/opposite-logical-fallacy-to-straw-man
• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man#Iron_manning
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
• https://thenonsequitur.com/?p=3527
• https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/#Iron-man_arguments