Motte and Bailey tactic

Extracted Attributes

• Type

  Informal logical fallacy and rhetorical framework

• Field

  Logic, Rhetoric, and Philosophy

• Motte Definition

  A modest, easily defensible, and often tautological position

• Bailey Definition

  A controversial, ambitious, and hard-to-defend position

• Common Application

  Political discourse, religious apologetics, and corporate policy debates

• Metaphorical Origin

  Medieval Motte-and-bailey castle architecture

Timeline

• The All-In Podcast (Episode 161) features a discussion on the Motte and Bailey tactic as a framework for understanding the DEI debate in Hollywood and the Musk-Cuban exchange. (Source: Document a7a96b3e-b0a7-41e7-a179-b42068a2117b)

  2024-01-12

• Publication of an article on Wheat & Tares discussing the application of the Motte and Bailey fallacy within religious apologetics. (Source: Wheat & Tares)

  2025-07-13

List of fallacies

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, error in assigning causation, and relevance, among others. The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound.

Web Search Results

• Motte and Bailey Fallacy - Wheat & Tares

  This last week while listening to a podcast on Logical Fallacies, I learned a new one called the Motte and Bailey fallacy. It is sometimes called moving the goal posts. It is a tactic where somebody makes a bold or controversial claim (the bailey), and then when that is defeated, retreats to a related, but simpler and more defensible claim (the motte) without admitting defeat on the original claim. The name motte and bailey is explained below from a Medium article [...] The Church is experts on using this tactic. Some examples are: Bailey: The Prophet speaks for God (then the Prophet says something dumb, man will never walk on the moon) Motte: He was only speaking as a man. Bailey: The Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians (then DNA proves it wrong) Motte: The Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians [...] identify a motte and bailey fallacy if the same individual advances one position and then retreats to another. I think this is probably most prevalent in the Mormon apologetics community.

• Motte-and-bailey fallacy

  A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch [...] The 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 and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has [...] makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

• What Is the Motte and Bailey Fallacy? | Definition & Examples

  This example illustrates the motte and bailey fallacy by initially asserting an extreme claim about immigrants being criminals (the bailey), then retreating to a more moderate stance on immigration policy (the motte) when challenged. This tactic allows the host to shield the initial, extreme position from criticism, while still promoting it when the controversy subsides. ## How does the motte and bailey fallacy work in an argument? [...] It shares similarities with the equivocation fallacy, but there is a difference: ### Motte and bailey fallacy origin The logical fallacy is named after a defensive feature of medieval castles comprising a hilltop fort, or “motte,” and an enclosed courtyard, or “bailey.” This layout allowed defenders of the castle to fall back to the motte for stronger defense, analogous to the tactic of shifting to an easily defensible position in the motte and bailey fallacy. [...] The motte and bailey fallacy is named after this castle design because, like the tactic of switching between an easily defensible position (the motte) and a more vulnerable but easier to access position (the bailey), it involves switching between extreme and moderate positions in an argument. The motte and bailey fallacy and the straw man fallacy both involve misrepresenting an argument, but the main difference lies in their tactics:

• Logical Fallacies: Motte-and-Bailey Arguments

  Motte-and-bailey refers to a style of castle built on a mount called a motte, overlooking a courtyard known as the bailey. The bailey served as a tiny, walled village complete with kitchens, shops, and barracks—practical, but difficult to defend against attacks. Under threats of enemy invasion, however, the bailey’s residents could retreat to the high, fortified motte. [...] In the same way, motte-and-bailey fallacies begin when someone presents a controversial, hard-to-defend point—the “bailey.” Then, when another person challenges that position, the arguer replaces the weak point with a more defensible one, representing the motte. For example: Arguer: Churches indoctrinate children with dangerous myths, so youth under 18 shouldn’t be allowed to attend church (bailey). [...] As with most fallacies, the best tool for recognizing and responding to motte-and-bailey arguments is ultimately the truth. Focusing on the truth of “bailey” statements’ issues keeps us from being distracted by mighty-seeming “mottes.” Clarifying the truth about our own positions keeps any strawmen at bay. Presenting the truth about the arguments’ topics refutes false premises, reveals faulty worldviews, and answers either-or fallacies. Truth exposes motte-and-bailey arguments for the rhetoric

• The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

  motte-and-bailey fallacy works by advancing one central point - the desired one - then switching to one easier to defend under the pretense of defending the original one. Here Irene asserts that cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge; to defend this point she has to prove some sort of equality between the two, depending on what she means by 'valid' (I guess she meant epistemological validity). When challenged by Sasha she changes track and says that culture shapes our [...] it's the motte and bailey because that's what it has already been named doesn't detract from it being name which doesn't describe the fallacy (in my opinion obviously). Motte-and-bailey is a good name imo. The bailey is the weak, easy-to-counter argument - in the literal sense of the word, it's the fertile lowland of the estate. The motte is the strong, hard-to-counter argument - the raised fortification - but it is undesired. So from the opponent's POV it is better to argue against a bailey [...] turning up to an assault expecting a motte a finding a bailey, rather than finding that they have to contend with both defences. |