Deflection and attack

You didn't answer the argument. You answered who I am, and hoped nobody would notice the difference.

You heard the warning about her before you heard a word she said. By the time she spoke, you'd already decided what it meant.

The new topic was more interesting than the old one. That was the whole point of raising it.

You let them change the subject because the new subject was easier to condemn than the original question. You were grateful for the redirect.

Throw something shocking on the table and everyone stops asking about what was already on it.

The version they defeated was easier to build than the one you actually made.

The specific accusation is met with the general label, so the specifics that would complicate the story are never addressed.

They gave both sides equal time. One side had the evidence. The other had a microphone.

Nobody claimed you did anything. They just kept putting your name in the same sentence as someone else's, until the sentence was the accusation.

The label arrives pre-verified. The target is forced to defend against a charge that has no evidentiary standard.

They could not defeat the claim, so they went after the person who made it.

Every answer produced one more polite request for a source. The politeness was the weapon. Eventually you were the one who looked unreasonable for stopping.

Where an idea came from is a different question from whether it's true. The two got merged, and only one of them got an answer.