At the toy store I work at, political debates are quotidian distractions. Half of us are liberals; the other half are conservatives. We all get along perfectly well, but we like to discuss our differences. In a more recent instance, I recall talking to my coworker, going on tangents, and eventually coming to the subject of environmentalism - specifically, global warming. I'm usually very passive about my opinions and open to other perspectives, but global warming is an issue that I refuse to stand down on.
When my coworker began citing his own personal hypotheses about the "true" nature of global warming, I got annoyed. He didn't have sources for his opinion - merely latent concepts he adopted from what he heard at the dinner table with his highly conservative family. He didn't rely upon logos, pathos, or ethos - he was simply borrowing ideas and asserting them as facts.
In my own demure fashion, I made a series of rebuttals to his arguments. The difference between our styles of reasoning was distinct - I had sources. When I do decide to voice my opinion, I make sure that I have a sizable arsenal of facts and objective references. I wasn't citing some amateur correspondant from leftist media sources, I offered university-backed research, expert analyses, and, at one point, I even broke out my laptop to present a visual aid when the discussion turned to the human vs. nature debate on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I used logical reasoning exclusively.
In the end... he still fundamentally disagreed with me, but didn't want to discuss it anymore. In our debate-happy toy story, that typically means I won that day.
