The difference is that the kettle argument is simultaneous making multiple claims which are mutually inconsistent, and thus a kettle argument is by definition i

The difference is that the kettle argument is simultaneous making multiple claims which are mutually inconsistent, and thus a kettle argument is by definition invalid. Even if it's true that any one of the kettle subarguments being true would achieve the desired goal of the overall argument (e.g. exonerating the accused person), the fact that all subarguments are being claimed simultaneously means that at the bare minimum we know the person is lying. Of course, the "argument in the alternative" is only different by a slight technicality: you just put an "and even if I were lying in the previous step, ..." between each subargument.