system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: When arguing about the certainty of anything, including politics, it is important to use logic.

Logic is basically the rules of valid cognition; we think using our words, and say what we think. Truth is the identity of logic. Propositional logic consists of tautological axioms that basically define truth, and truth conversely defines logic. So if you believe in logic, you believe in truth. If you believe that logic is absolute, you believe that truth is absolute. 

On the other hand, if you want to argue with logic and say you it's 'fuzzy' or you really can't get to the bottom of it, then you undermine your own position because it stops you from proving or verifying anything. You might as well not speak, because nothing you say is identifiable; it can't be distinguished from it's logical negation or complement.
gpt
I would argue that that really depends on what your goal is.  If your goal is to try to come to the best possible solution to a problem, then logic is a great tool to use to get there.

However, if your goal is to convince others that you are right and to go with what you say (like, say, a political debate prior to an election) then you should use whatever is most effective at convincing your audience that you are right.  Often, that is _not_ logic because we are not always logical beings.  Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Authority may be bad logical arguments, but the are **super effective** at getting people to believe your stance is the right one.