pillpug n. /ˈpɪlˌpʌɡ/

1. A contrived form of debate or argumentation in which logical or moral reasoning is retrofitted to justify a belief, course of action, or ideology that was adopted arbitrarily or emotionally beforehand. Often characterized by invented premises, selective moral frameworks, or skewed hypotheticals designed to make the conclusion appear inevitable.
2. A pseudo-rational style of debate in which elaborate, internally consistent arguments are constructed atop arbitrary premises or emotionally chosen beliefs, with the sole goal of post hoc justification. Unlike genuine inquiry, a pillpug operates within self-serving or contrived logical systems, often mimicking the rigor of legitimate discourse while subverting its intent.
3. A tactical form of casuistry resembling pilpul, but stripped of epistemic humility, used not to uncover truth, but to obscure the arbitrariness of a preselected conclusion.

e.g. "This was promised to us 3000 years ago."

Usage:
“Her whole manifesto is a pillpug, she already knew what she wanted to believe and reverse-engineered the ethics around it.”

Etymology:
Coined as a portmanteau and satirical twist on pilpul (Talmudic hair-splitting logic) and pugilist (fighter), possibly with overtones of “pill” from ideological internet jargon (e.g., redpill), evoking combative and doctrinaire reasoning.

Synonyms: rationalization theater, moral gymnastics, logic-LARP, dogma laundering

See also: motivated reasoning, sophistry, kettle logic, rules lawyering, ideological backfill