The moment when the type of required evidence itself becomes the moving target. An arguer doesn't just move the goalpost for what will convince them; they shift the fundamental category of proof required (e.g., from statistics to personal testimony to historical documents and back), ensuring the debate remains forever about the rules of validation, not the substance.
Example:
Person A: “Here are crime statistics.”
Person B: “Statistics can be manipulated. I need a victim’s testimony.”
Person A: “Here’s a victim’s interview.”
Person B: “That’s just one emotional story. I need hard data.”
They aren’t engaging with evidence; they’re constantly moving the proofgoalpost.
The elusive, often vaguely defined, piece of evidence that an arguer claims would settle the issue for them. It is presented as a reasonable target but is usually defined with such specificity or grandeur that it is practically unattainable, functioning more as a conversation-ender than a genuine objective.
Example: In a climate debate, someone says, “My proofgoal is a single, undeniable piece of evidence that 100% conclusively proves human activity is the sole cause of all warming, with zero margin for error or natural variation.” This “proofgoal” is a mythical, perfect piece of evidence whose impossibility is used to justify ongoing skepticism.
Similar to moving the proofpost, but focused on redefining the ultimate, final piece of evidence needed for total concession. The “proofgoal” is recast as something even more unattainable or different in kind, ensuring the “final proof” can never be reached.
Moving the Proofgoal Example: After being shown multiple eyewitnesses and forensic reports for an event, a skeptic says, “Okay, but my ultimate proofgoal was always a continuous, unedited video from a neutral third party covering every single second. Since that doesn’t exist, I remain unconvinced.” They’ve retroactively moved the finish line to a different planet.
The grand, master technique that combines all the above. It involves continuously and fluidly redefining both the specific evidence required (the proof) and the ultimate objective or standard (the goal) in a coordinated, relentless dance to avoid ever acknowledging a point. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a shifting maze.
Moving the Proofgoalpost Example: In a debate about historical injustice:
First, they demand documentary archives. When provided, they say the archives are incomplete (moving the proofpost).
They then say the real proofgoal is a firsthand account from a specific leader. When an account is found, they dismiss it as biased (moving the goalproof).
This integrated, evasive strategy is moving the proofgoalpost.
It is said of the situation where a person has the bad luck to make contact with his testicles against an undefined surface or object, intentioned or not.
Given the nature of the word, it is more appropriate to design cases where the interaction is made with a moving object, for example, a ball.
Although it is extremely painful for the victim, it tends to be considerably funny to people who witness it.
Today in the baseball game the pitcher took a nutshot; the baseball hit him in the nuts.
Man, I just watched the funniest nutshot video ever.
A "human" that spends so much time playing video games that their posture is level nerd neck. Everytime anyone goes tryhard they hunch down and their neck gets longer there fore a nerd neck is always hunched down cause they're always going try hard. In other words a nerd neck is a try hard, since their neck is 100% longer than the average human being due to playing too many video games and taking them serious, nerd necks are not even considered human anymore but something more sad. Nerd necks are often found on fortnite, their natural habitat usually being tilted towers.