“____ is ____.”
“This (person, action, item, etc.) is (a) that.”
This kind of statement is name calling.
Essentially, it’s a conclusion, or an assertion. It doesn’t include much, if any, support for the conclusion.
Using mere name calling will leave many of the most important questions unanswered:
Is X really Y? Are you sure that X isn’t something else instead? How sure? What does it mean for something to be Y? What is Y? Is Y good or bad in this case? Why? Compared to what alternatives? How sure are you?
Unlike Wikipedia, I don’t only regard something as name calling if it is an insult. It could be praise (“he’s a straight talker”, “genius”, “saint”). Nor do I limit it to targeting people. It could target actions (“telling it like it is”, “pandering”, “virtue signaling”) or beliefs or policies anything else. Because the same concerns can arise for all of these kinds of name calling, and they share a lot of things in common, the same form, and because the name fits.