My Weakest Arguments

The word 'argument' here is used purely in a non-confrontational and non-combative context.

I have observed that almost all of my arguments in any discussion can be put into two buckets.

The first type is where I can trace in my mind the facts that contributed to that argument's inception. In fact, on the battlefield, these supporting facts act as extra ammunition.

The second type - Is where I don't have any supporting facts, and I don't have any logical explanation for these arguments. The accumulation of all the experiences that I have had over time has produced some personal preferences. The second type of argument is, more often than not, the personification of these preferences.

The arguments that fall into the second bucket are my weakest arguments.

I have thought about this at length. The best solution I can come up with is to support the argument by putting a label on myself so that others would at least acknowledge where I am coming from. The label can be anything - as serious as liberal/conservative/libertarian to as lightweight as cat person/dog person.

Though I rarely go down this path because it dumbs down the argument, and the label gets all the attention. People, consciously or unconsciously, start associating me with a tribe, and going forward, every other word that comes out of my mouth is looked at through a myopic lens.

I will continue looking for a better way to convey my thoughts, but a positive consequence of this exercise is that I now empathize with people who say that they prefer x over y simply because "their heart says so."