This is an example of a motte-and-bailey fallacy (though, inversed from its typical use).

This fallacy states that a person will use a motte as a proxy for a bailey (an easy to defend position), implicitly trying to draw equivalence between the two ‘wants’.

How do I argue that a fallacy is not true? If you drink too much water, it will kill you. In the absence of further claim, this is both true and irrelevant to the discussion. Why is it more difficult to be a deceptive argumentator and more a case of trying to make my point clear.

If you could easily continue advancing your position dismissing that claim that you were originally referred to as.. “Unknown,” you could easily continue on from your original position unless the law requires that you do this? Is

• too much water good for
  • you. Ah, water is bad for you and no one should be left to flinch.
  • Why is this true? If tautologically so, in fact, since that is the definition of too much, but here this is irrelevant. Jeenkart: So, since water is good for you, I propose that

Looking at the other answers, I will also add that I don’t consider this an application to the extreme’ fallacy. The key word here is the word too much. When someone takes assumptions that people exclude extreme circumstances, then a claim about those extreme circumstances is valid. By its very construction, your opponent argument is effectively saying “Your argument is false in the special circumstance where it is false”. Isn’t that a fact or a special circumstance that you thought you would accept at face value, without having to adjust your position that your argument is valid outside the special circumstance which was not part of the conversation?

Are there any good examples of ‘Appeal to Extremes’ fallacy in intellectual discourse? How do unstated assumptions add up? Why? The most blurred topics of a conversation, like ethics,, may need to be elucidated further for fruitful conversation, but in this instance, it is clearly outside of the domain.