Similar to teaching people how to hack for the sake of improving computer security, or maybe more similar to the old fantasy trope of the monster / sorcerer or whatever losing it's power if you know it's name. I feel like most people know of these tactics, but they can't call them out effectively, because it's cumbersome and awkward to do so.
Let's take your example. Is there a documented case of someone who started out being against the wall and then got confused into supporting it by the "Mexico pays" canard? I'd love to see that.
There are various rhetorical tactics and yes they can be effective... but none of them amount to Jedi mind tricks.
edit: to test my assertion, google that phrase. then google it with only results from 2015 or earlier. Scott Adams all the way down.
Media with positions I agree with do this, I recognize it. It's not going way. NPR likes to say during their pledge drives that they only give us facts... Uhhuh. I mean Innskeep is notorious.
Maybe I take propositional statements a bit too literally? I don't see the trick, or it's not even a good trick.
Is bitcoin a waste of electricity:
1. No. something worse? No.
2. No. something worse? Yes. <-- doesn't make logical sense.
3. Yes. something worse? No. It's just a waste of elec.
4. Yes. something worse? Yes. <-- really hate bitcoin here
Maybe the better statement is "Bitcoin is worse than wasting electricity"(???) Then the target needs to deny that it's "worse" before considering "waste of electricity".
Thoughts?
Trump did this with the "and mexico will pay for it" addendum to building the wall. By getting people to say "Mexico will never pay for it!" they are mentally conceding the wall.
I dislike these sorts of verbal tactics, but they are effective manipulations.