While it is true that this issue may be considered obscure by those not in the fields in which the topic is generally discussed, it should be obvious that the outcome of this issue has the potential to affect virtually every area of government and industry, even extending well into academia. Should this be allowed to occur, the very foundations of our society -- law, capitalism, and education -- would not merely decay, but implode under the weight of turmoil. It is therefore of paramount import that a resolution to this unresolved issue be not only sought, but obtained. Since the inception of this controversial issue in the latter half of the nineteenth century, decisions have been made based on current philosophical and sociological interpretations of the issue, but it is sheer folly to allow a topic as contested as this one to be subjected to the whim and fancy of whichever arbitrary political trend happens to be in vogue at the moment. No, the time for a resolution to the issue is now, for we are rapidly approaching the aptly described point of no return, after which the issue will have reached such epidemic proportions as to disallow any further decision-making. We are in danger of permitting the issue to cascade into chaos, and so we ignore the importance of a timely resolution at our own peril. In the final analysis, my position on this issue is the correct one and, if extrapolated to its logical conclusions, will lead to a satisfactory resolution of the controversy.
My position is of indisputable rectitude. While detractors have pointed out that there is, in fact, a dispute surrounding the affair, thus making it something other than indisputable, this is nothing more than a devious tactic to shift attention away from my position. I cannot and will not deny that the issue itself is under contention; I merely maintain that rationality and logic dictate that my stance on the issue is the only correct approach.
The most initially evident merit to my position is the well-reasoned and thoughtful tone with which I have presented it. The controversy which looms about this issue is often an emotionally-charged volley of absurdity and ill-researched or deliberately misleading points. My position, contrawise, has been reached through an objective and dispassionate investigation into the topic, as well as careful scrutiny of previously suggested resolutions. By examining all facets of this issue in an unbiased and strictly impartial manner, I have been able to incorporate only relevant facts while discarding the usual hysteria and ardor that have so often clouded the subject in the past. Therefore, my position has been well-researched and includes only the most salient points regarding the controversy, each subjected to a rigorous scrutiny of relentless skepticism, and this is apparent from the superb manner in which I have offered my viewpoint.
Some would be so audacious as to contend that this issue is not a controversial one. It is a travesty of logic that the opposition would suggest that this issue is anything but controversial, given the well-documented emotional maelstrom surrounding it; a cursory examination of the extensive amount of data available regarding the issue will lead to the irrefutable conclusion that a distinct controversy exists. Indeed, the very argument is self-defeating, for the nature of the objection demonstrates that the issue is far from being axiomatic and that multiple stances can be taken. When this riposte is considered, the objection quickly becomes flimsy and transparent, and we are right to dismiss it.
Others have freely admitted that the issue remains controversial, but continue to disagree with my position, asserting that the issue is resolved. This rebuke is a standard tactic among dissenters, and while it is erroneous, it is necessary to deconstruct it in order to fully understand why. As noted, my position is the correct one, but an oft-overlooked implication in this statement is that I had to have profess a position initially, an action I would not have undertaken had this issue been resolved. To intimate that I would assume any stance on this issue, much less the correct one, without having first investigated possible resolutions would be to utter nonsense. Furthermore, this devious objection is once again merely a grotesque attempt to mislead, for it fails to address my position at all, and shifts the focus in a subtle manner to the nature of the issue itself. Though this may be a valid approach when selecting a topic for discussion, once the topic has been selected, it becomes nothing more than a cheap, if cunning, resort to wordplay. We are, for purposes of this discourse, interested only in the topic at hand, which is the unresolved controversial issue. If the detractors of my position wish to demur, they are obligated to do so within the established framework of the topic, not attack the topic. But perhaps most fatally, this ploy falls victim to the aforementioned zeitgeist, and mistakes interpretation for resolution. The fact of the matter, which may be verified through numerous credentialed authorities and well-reviewed sources of documentation, is that this controversial issue has yet to be resolved, and so when a resolution is sought after, my position stands alone as the only legitimate one to hold.
Contrast, if you will, these commonly raised objections -- little more than desperate gambits -- to my position, which is straightforward, concise, and does not hinge on subtle nuances of semantics in order to be understood. It should be apparent from the ease with which I have dismissed counterarguments that I am more than passingly familiar with the issue and its controversy, making my opinion on the issue of considerably high worth. Therefore, when I say that my position on the unresolved controversial issue is the correct one, I may be considered an authority on the subject. The fact that I have taken a position at all means that I have a bias, but I have been balanced and nonpartisan in my presentation of the facts and the manner in which I address protests.
Clearly, my arguments are cogent and demonstrate a superior display of linguistic prowess. This, coupled with my exhaustively researched plethora of factual information divorced from doctrine or emotional prejudice, should be sufficient evidence that my position on the unresolved controversial issue is the definitive word. If my position is accepted, the issue will cease to be controversial and its status as unresolved may be abolished.