Propaganda techniques

Citing an authority figure or institution in place of evidence, so the claim rests on who said it rather than on what supports it.

Treating widespread belief as proof, so the reader is invited to agree because everyone else supposedly does.

Attaching a position to a shared value — patriotism, family, faith, freedom — so that opposing the position looks like opposing the value.

Driving a conclusion with fear of a threat or with an existing prejudice, rather than with evidence about how likely the threat actually is.

Invoking national or group pride so that the argument becomes a loyalty test rather than a question of fact.

Reducing an outcome with many causes to a single cause, usually the one that assigns blame most conveniently.

Presenting two options as the only options, so that a reader who rejects one is pushed into the other.

Claiming one step leads inevitably to a distant outcome, with the intermediate steps left unargued.

Restating an opponent's position in a weaker or distorted form, then refuting the distortion.

Introducing material irrelevant to the question at hand, so that attention moves off the weak point.

Answering criticism by pointing at someone else's wrongdoing rather than addressing the criticism.

Compressing a contestable position into a short repeatable phrase that resists examination.

Manufacturing urgency so that a decision gets made before it can be scrutinized.

Using a phrase that forecloses discussion rather than answering it.

Choosing words whose emotional charge exceeds what the documented facts support, so the reader's reaction is set before the evidence is presented.

Restating a claim often enough that familiarity substitutes for support.

Scaling something up or down out of proportion to the record — inflating a threat, or shrinking a documented harm.

Using language imprecise enough that the claim cannot be checked, while still leaving an impression.

Attaching a negative label to a person or group so that the label does the work an argument would otherwise have to do.

Casting suspicion on a source's credibility without offering grounds for the suspicion.

Discrediting a position by linking it to a disliked person or group rather than engaging with it.

Deflecting a criticism by charging the critic with inconsistency, leaving the original point unanswered.

Attacking the character of the person making an argument instead of the argument.