"Without evidence" is state of fact, that is not manipulative. Also, if something was debunked multiple times already and is in fact conspiracy theory, it is perfectly appropriate to call it "debunked conspiracy theory".

What calling these manipulative and refusing these as statements does is that it biases writing towards claims without evidence and towards conspiracy theories. Because you dont allow writer to call them what they are.

> It prejudices the reader without giving the reader a chance to even consider the claims or theory.

Note that many without evidence behind them and conspiracy theories have claims that in isolation sounds ok. It is only when you check evidence and find that there is none you know to reject that.