The loaded language fallacy occurs when an arguer relies upon evocative or emotive words to persuade an audience of the arguer's position.

Here is an example:

Husband to wife: "We need to replace the patio furniture. These are dilapidated, sad-looking, outdated pieces." ​Wife: "Are you sure we can't clean them off and replace the cushions, instead of replacing them altogether? Wouldn't that be sufficient?" ​Husband: "No way. The old things are barely worth donating to the charity store." ​Wife: "Before putting on new cushions, we could first spray-paint the metal frames. The chairs will look almost new. This would save us a lot of money." ​Husband: "They look horrid. They are an insult to our guests. Let's put them in the junk heap where they belong."

The husband here is not actually addressing the wife's questions but instead is relying on loaded language ("dilapidated", "sad", "outdated", "barely worth donating", "old things", "horrid", "insult", "junk") to assert his position. ​(Also, his persistent repetition is going in the direction of argumentum ad nauseum.)