Oh gosh, I have stories about this sort of logic from my time in American high school and college competitive debate. Usually, the affirmative team is proposin

Oh gosh, I have stories about this sort of logic from my time in American high school and college competitive debate. Usually, the affirmative team is proposing a plan that implements a resolution, and the negative team has to present arguments which convince the judge that either the plan, or the whole resolution is a bad idea. A trivial example of the kind of "Kettle" logic that we had to deal with on the affirmative, is the belief that performative contradictions are simply part of "Competing Interpretations" and are totally fine for the negative team to use. This meant that it was common for a team to simultaneously argue that 1. The affirmative plan crashes the economy and 2. That Capitalism is a fundamentally unjust system and that the affirmative plan reperpetuates it. If you (the affirmative) argued against point 1, the standard plan by the negative was to jettison their arguements and concede to whatever affirmative points and turn them to help their 2nd point ("Well, your plan helps the economy so much that it makes capitalism that much more powerful!") Smart teams argued that such "Performative Contradictions" and "Competing Interpretations" were fundamentally abusive. This was the correct strategy and by forcing the debate to devolve into these discussions of obscure theory we lost whatever educational value that the activity had about the topic. Kettle Logic is the first time I've had a name for this that wasn't a debate community term-of-art.