The problems with your statement can be boiled down to this:

States assertions as if they were proven facts. It's the moral equivalent of saying "A car wreck killed my cat" without proving it.

Uses logical fallacies in developing arguments, which renders the result unproven even if the underlying facts are proven. This is the equivalent of saying: "A car killed my cat. Here's the video. Good, now that we all know a car killed my cat: Since being touched by a car kills cats it should be illegal to let your automobile touch a cat."

--

Now, social science is not the same as hard science. You don't have to prove that car/cat interactions are always fatal before you institute cat-protection laws that make life hard on automobile owners. You do have to provide accurate data, make reasonable arguments backed by said data, state your margin of uncertainty, and acknowledge that sometimes cats can benefit from touching a car, such as the comfort of napping on the warm hood of a newly-parked car after walking in the snow. You also must make good-faith estimates of the cost of implementing your suggested restrictions, such as the costs of installing cat-repelling devices on cars, the annoyances caused by cats running away from cars, possibly damaging Aunt Mildred's petunias, etc. Your failure to do so weakens your argument and opens an opportunity for your opponent to raise the issue and frame it in a way that benefits their point of view.

Things you must never do in an argument:

Lie, or appear to be lying

Make a logically erroneous argument, or appear to be doing so

Appear to be hiding something

State something as a fact unless you know everyone concedes to its factualness, or that everyone but your opponent concedes to its factualness AND that any argument to the contrary will make your opponent look silly to everyone listening. When discussing policy issues, "everyone" includes the policy-makers and their constituencies, i.e. the voters. In practical terms, "99% of everyone" counts as long as there won't be any objections from anyone who is considered "credible." There will always be a few kooks out there who will say black is white and the Moon is made of green cheese.

If possible, don't argue with kooks on issues where only kooks share their opinion. It's a waste of time.

If possible, avoid arguing religious issues in policy debates: It turns the policy debate into a freedom-of-religion issue. A kook who thinks he should be able to own an atomic bomb will be laughed at, but if he says his God commands him to have atomic weapons, he'll be given a serious hearing.