Absurd Extension
Taking someone's actual position and stretching it to an extreme conclusion they never argued, then treating that extreme as if it refutes them.
"You said portion size matters a bit, so apparently now everyone should just starve. Got it."
"You like remote work, so by your logic we should shut down every office on the planet?"
"So because someone wants a little more privacy online, no company should ever collect any data at all?"
"You think kids should have some screen-time limits, so I guess we're banning all technology for children now."
Why It's Unproductive
Pushing a moderate point to a caricature and knocking that down leaves the real point untouched, and it puts the other person on the defensive for a position they never took. The extreme version is so much easier to argue against, and dismantling it can feel like winning, which is what makes the move so inviting. But the conversation ends up being about an argument nobody actually made.
The Better Move
Respond to the version of the point the person actually made, at the strength they made it. If a position seems to carry an uncomfortable implication, ask whether they'd really endorse it instead of assuming they must.
Why It's Better
Engaging the real claim keeps the disagreement honest and gives the other person something they can actually respond to. Asking "would you take it that far?" often surfaces the reasonable boundary they had in mind all along.
Examples
OP: "Small teams usually ship faster than big ones. Past a point, adding people slows things down."
Antipattern: "By your logic no company should have more than three developers. Obviously false."
Better: "There's definitely a point of diminishing returns, though it's not a hard ceiling. Coordination cost depends a lot on how the work splits up. Where do you think it starts to bite?"
OP: "Cars kill tens of thousands of people a year. We should design cities to depend on them less."
Antipattern: "So we should just ban all cars and go back to horses? Great plan."
Better: "Safety-wise, sure. But 'depend on them less' only works if the alternatives are already there, and most US cities aren't there yet. Build the transit and bike lanes first, or you just strand people."
OP: "You can't test your way to correctness. Past a certain coverage level, more tests barely help."
Antipattern: "So we should write no tests at all, got it."
Better: "Sure, coverage has diminishing returns, but the first chunk catches a lot. Are you arguing against a specific kind of test, or just the 100% coverage mandate?"