Arguments of intimidation are defined as being: "a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure."
Ayn Rand coined the term in her "The Virtue of Selfishness," though it is a phenomenon that has been prominent since the dawning of the very first argument of all time, I'm sure.
In summary, these arguments could look anything like this: "Only someone who is dumb/unintelligent/insane/psychotic/evil/ dishonest/etc., would ever hold such an opinion and/or idea." This type of statement is most commonly used by the losing arguer after they've recognized theirs either out of convincing statements or facts or that they never had any to start with.
This mode of debate is more common than not, and can be recognized in daily conversations, but is most heavily impactful in mainstream media and breaking political issues.
Let's take the Kavanaugh scandal, for example.
There were two sides; both extremists in their own right. No matter the side, whether it's "believing women above all else" (specifically Christine Ford, because she somehow represents all women everywhere), or the side of being told to not listen to the allegations at all, and believe Kavanaugh with no matter the accusations, choosing either one directly positions you against the other.
There is no middle group here.
No perhaps "we should support Ford in practicing her Constitutional given right to bring her accusation to court, but maybe we shouldn't seek to destroy Kavanaugh's life prematurely." Nothing along those lines was an option. It was a demanded either/or.
The problem was, no matter which side you chose, the other took instantaneous action in an attempt to shame you by attacking your character, depending on your decision.
"You support Kavanaugh? You didn't believe Ford immediately? You're obviously a misogynist. Clearly, you hate women and probably contribute to rape culture."
"You believe Ford before the entirety of a trial? You're a morality witch-hunter, strictly out to destroy the lives of men everywhere."
The arguments of intimidation surrounding this debacle all ensued intense morality-of-self-shaming, first caused by the demand for you to choose one of their two designated sides (rather than cultivating a rational opinion yourself, like, I don't know, sticking to due process?), and then ensued attacks by the other side for making a decision society pressured you to make in the first place.
Of course, arguments like these-- arguments that are not supported by calmly explainable facts and reason-- are accomplished through very colorful insults, that definitely succeed in painting you like as a piece of actual garbage in the eyes of political correctness, no matter what your stand.
Some of these arguments today circulate topics such as these:
1. If you support gun rights, you clearly don't value the lives of children.
2. If you think women should learn self-defense, you must love to aid and ebbed rapists.
3. If you voted for Donald Trump, you're obviously a white supremacist.
4. If you are a feminist, you definitely want to extinguish men.
5. If you aren't a feminist, you obviously would prefer women to be property.
6. If you're pro-large government, you're a communist.
7. If you're pro-small government, you're an anarchist.
8. If you aren't pro-choice, you're a misogynist.
9. If you use a straw, you would probably love to just strangle all dolphins with your bare hands.
So again, what do these "arguments" lack?
Well, lots of things. For example, they're all blanket statements that lack creativity, individuality, tolerance, class, or knowledge, just to name a few.
But more than those, the ability to use basic reasoning seems to stand out above all.
Arguments of intimidation are clearly used when those making them seem to have no actual reasoning for their argument at all.
Not only do these arguments lack grounds in general, they never had a basis at all.
It boils down to this: unintelligent and irrelevant insults in the form of politically intimidating debates are still unintelligent and irrelevant insults.