"because people who aren't already on your side assume that if you had valid reasons, you wouldn't be resorting to manipulative exaggerations for shock value."

"because people who aren't already on your side assume that if you had valid reasons, you wouldn't be resorting to manipulative exaggerations for shock value." Related is the idea of building a case by throwing in the entire kitchen sink in order to make your point with both strong and weak points. I've found it's best to try and stick the the basic strongest points. If you put weak points in your argument and people think "that's no big deal" it will detract from your main point and make people think "oh is that all they've got?" An fictional example to try and illustrate: "Bill Jeffrey the CEO of XYZ flies in a corporate jet and has a $10 million salary. He also gets free lunch in the cafeteria as well a laptop computer for his house in addition to a company car". (Now add on 10 other mundane things that many execs get)