No, really. I think you've got a mistake
The fallacy goes like this:
As a consquence of this rule you've proposed X is true.
X is absurd
your premise is flawed
the logical version goes like this:
As a consequence of your premises X is true
X is also false
X and not X is absurd
your premise is flawed.(thus the logical opposite of the premise)
The reason the former is a fallacy and the latter is a proof, is usually because the underlying arguments of consequence in the former take an irrational extreme that aren't true logical to arrive at the absurdity.
And in the latter, each step can be verified.
Nominally, if the method by which you reach the absurd conclusion is valid in the original argumentation presented by your opponent, it's a good take down.
It just usually isn't. This fallacy is usually another fallacy in carefully constructed disguise. I defend its usage.