Logic Bomb

I will grant you that A ≠ B.

And I will listen/read while you explain to me that A = Bad.

But when you then tell me that you have proven that B = Good, I will disagree with you, regardless of how strenuously you object. Because a takedown of A, no matter how thorough, leaves me just as much in the dark about the pros and cons of B as I was when you started. For all I know, B = Bad, or even B = much, much worse. I have no information on which to judge that, because you've only given me information about A.

B = Good is its own argument, and it deserves to be made as such. Especially if you want to convince me that it's true.

Now, I suspect that this is part and parcel of the "two-party" political system that we have in the United States, which creates a tendency towards false dichotomies. Although the Republicans and the Democrats are the major players, to say that we're a "two-party" system overstates things somewhat, as the two parties are not mandated by law - they simply tend to be the only ones that can manage to be viable on a national level. Because of this, withholding a vote from one party does not mean that I'm forced to give it to the other. (I dislike when people claim that votes for "third parties" are thrown away - by that logic, ANY vote for a losing candidate is wasted.)

Of course, it's easier to create a takedown of A, rather than go in depth into the pros and cons of B. But it tends to create an argument that does little other than preach to the choir of people who already support B. Other people tend to remain unconvinced.