Is there a (more well-known/mainstream) name for arguments-as-soldiers-bias?
More specifically, interpreting an explanation of why or how an event happened as approval of that event. Or claiming that someone who points out a flaw in an argument against X is a supporter of X. (maybe these have separate names?)
Should we even call this a bias? They're both unfortunate, but they're also both reasonable Bayesian updates.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.