Overwhelming an opponent with a rapid series of many weak arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in quick succession, making it impossible to address each point adequately within the time or space available. The sheer volume creates an illusion of comprehensive argument while exploiting the asymmetry between making claims and refuting them.

A propaganda technique that involves producing a continuous, high-volume stream of diverse messages (often contradictory) through multiple channels, with little commitment to truth or consistency. The goal is not to persuade through any particular message but to overwhelm, confuse, and create a chaotic information environment where truth becomes unclear.

Using a short, commonly accepted phrase or cliché to end discussion or critical thinking about a complex issue. These phrases are designed to seem profound or final while actually short-circuiting deeper analysis. They function as cognitive stop-signs that prevent further inquiry or nuance.

Substituting catchy slogans, sound bites, or memorable phrases for substantive argument or analysis. This involves using emotionally resonant but intellectually empty phrases as if they constitute reasoning, often exploiting the memorability and shareability of simple messages to avoid engaging with complexity.

Using deliberately vague or ambiguous language that appears to make a claim while actually avoiding commitment to any specific, verifiable assertion. These words and phrases create an illusion of meaning while providing escape routes from accountability. They 'suck the meaning out' of statements like a weasel sucks out the contents of an egg.

Using words and phrases with strong emotional connotations or implicit value judgments to influence opinion without providing substantive argument. This involves selecting language that predisposes the audience toward a particular conclusion through emotional associations rather than through reasoning or evidence.

Presenting only evidence that supports a conclusion while deliberately omitting, hiding, or ignoring relevant evidence that contradicts or weakens that conclusion. This creates a misleading impression by giving an incomplete picture of the available evidence.

Assuming that other people think, feel, perceive, or reason in the same way you do, and using this assumption as a basis for arguments or predictions without recognizing that cognitive and experiential diversity exists. This includes believing your internal experiences are universal and failing to account for different mental processes, values, or perspectives.

Believing something to be true, or arguing that something is likely to be true, primarily because one wants it to be true or because believing it would be pleasant or beneficial, rather than because of adequate evidence. The desirability of a proposition is treated as evidence for its truth.

Arguing that a current practice, policy, or state of affairs should be maintained primarily because it is the current state, or that change should be resisted primarily because it represents departure from the status quo, without providing independent justification for why the current state is actually superior to alternatives.