TacticsEvasion
Moving the Goalposts
Also called Shifting the goalposts · Raising the bar
Raising the bar for evidence or acceptance every time the previous bar is met.
Definition
Moving the goalposts means changing what would count as enough evidence, or enough of a concession, right after the original standard has been met.
The phrase comes from sports: imagine a kicker lining up a field goal, only for the posts to be moved as the ball is in the air. In argument, it means the question is never really open. Whatever is shown, a new demand takes its place, so the speaker never has to admit the point.
How it works
The tactic exploits the fact that each new demand, on its own, can sound reasonable. “Show me the data.” “Now show me it’s not a fluke.” “Now show me it works everywhere.” Taken one at a time, they look like careful skepticism. Taken together, they show that no answer was ever going to be accepted.
It also shifts the burden in a subtle way. The person meeting each standard spends their effort chasing, while the person setting the standards never has to state, up front, what would actually change their mind.
How to spot it
A demand is met, and the response is a new demand rather than an acknowledgment.
The original question quietly disappears once it’s been answered.
The standard keeps rising: “some evidence” becomes “proof,” and “proof” becomes “certainty.”
Objections change topic each time one is answered, but the conclusion never does.
Asking “what would change your mind?” gets no clear answer.
Examples
01“Show me a transitional fossil”
A creationist challenges a biologist to produce a single fossil showing a transition between two groups of animals. The biologist points to Tiktaalik, a fish with features of early land animals.
What went wrong
The response was that now there are two gaps instead of one: one on each side of Tiktaalik. Each fossil found creates a new pair of “missing links,” so the demand can never be met. The goal was never a specific fossil.
02The shifting case against nuclear power
An environmental group opposes a new nuclear plant as too dangerous. When safety data is presented, the objection becomes waste storage. When a storage plan is offered, the objection becomes cost. When costs fall, it becomes construction time.
What went wrong
Each concern is legitimate on its own and worth debating. But when the objections replace one another without any being acknowledged as answered, the conclusion was settled first and the reasons were found afterward.
03“Protest, but not like that”
Critics of a protest movement say they support the cause but object to the methods. Marches are too disruptive. A quiet gesture at a sporting event is disrespectful. Boycotts hurt workers.
What went wrong
If no form of protest is acceptable, the objection was never about the form. The fair test is to ask which method would be acceptable, and see whether there’s an answer.
Why it works
Each step looks like reasonable caution, and skepticism is a virtue. The audience often sees only the latest demand, not the trail of demands already met. The person chasing the goalposts can also start to look like they’re failing, since they always seem to be one answer short.
How to counter it
1Name the previous goal
Point out, calmly, that the earlier standard was met.
Earlier you asked for this, and I showed it. Can we agree that part is settled before moving on?
2Ask for the finish line
Ask for the full standard up front, so it can’t keep moving.
What exactly would convince you? Let’s agree on that before I go looking.
3Track the trail out loud
When the pattern is clear, describe it for the audience.
First it was safety, then waste, then cost. Each one got answered. What’s the real objection?
When it's fair play
Raising a new concern isn’t the same as moving the goalposts. Complicated proposals often have several separate problems, and naming them one at a time is normal. New evidence can also reasonably raise the bar: if a first study turns out to be flawed, asking for a better one is fair.
The difference is acknowledgment. Someone arguing in good faith says “fair, that answers my first concern; here’s my second.” Someone moving the goalposts never concedes any point, and the conclusion never moves even as the reasons change.
Sources & further reading
- “Moving the Goalposts,” in Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy, ed. Robert Arp, Steven Barbone and Michael Bruce (Wiley-Blackwell, 2018), 185–188.
- Douglas Walton, Burden of Proof, Presumption and Argumentation (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
- Douglas Walton and Erik Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue (SUNY Press, 1995). On why conceding answered points matters in good-faith argument.
End of entry · Back to top