Anecdote involving unfairly oppressed figure. (Legally mandated admission that such oppression was disproved in court.) Continuation of argument as if previous sentence did not exist. Unverifiable claim that many others have been similarly oppressed, followed by bolded hypothesis masquerading as universal truth.
Opposing argument presented in “quotation marks” to demonstrate its fallacious nature (italicised rhetorical question, disguising unsupported assertion as undeniable fact?)
“Unbelievably stupid opinion expressed in clunky manner”, attributed to fictitious person who disagrees with author. Clever demolition of stupid opinion. Witty remark, drawing on (and thus explaining need for) clunky manner in which stupid opinion was expressed.
Attempt at logical argument through formalisation of hypothesis. Cleverly worded continuation of argument, subtly introducing unstated assumption. Reliance on said assumption to reach preordained conclusion.
Unsubstantiated statistic, expressed in words rather than numbers so as to discourage independent verification. “Quotation from author at same publication”, presented as only explanation for unsubstantiated statistic. Glib remark.
Controversial assertion buried in sentence beginning with the words, ‘Of course’.
Triumphant paraphrasing of policy paper issued by partisan think-tank, supporting author’s contention. Callback to fictitious person’s unbelievably stupid opinion - glib remark in bold text.
Smug concluding sentence, oblivious to the fact that the author is guilty of many of the objectionable behaviours set out above.
Long list of qualifications from dubious educational institutions, publications in unreviewed journals, and self-awarded titles. Desperate attempt to pad out paragraph by describing an essay the author once wrote in university. Statement that author is founder and editor of a blog - link to blog. Invitation to follow author on twitter.