An argument must have three basic things within an agenda to be legitimate in a discussion. You must be internally consistent, have verifiable sources, and must be externally consistent. Without these, the argument is null and void and generally embarrassing.
So, take the statement, “Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt because they would be bad parents, as evidenced by X statistics, therefore I oppose a proposition allowing them to do so.”
It is internally consistent (They would be dangerous to children, therefore unsupported.) and has sources (cited statistics). If they were to support each other, the argument is then externally consistent and worth discussing. If not, you fail.
Remember, kids, that personal feelings are arbitrary and subjective, and are therefore fallacious to use in logical debate.
This is just me warming up for this political essay I’m working on, detailing a few major classifications of personality within the political spectrum. I’ve narrowed it down to 4 types, possibly with two or three subtypal personas within each one.
I have a vague rough draft but I’ll get more work done on it soon. Patience dear devoted fans. I’ll be back.