The very reason other issues make for less incisive examples (than slavery, genocide) is that they are less clear-cut, and more beholden to complexities and tradeoffs.
It's a rhetorical trick to invoke slavery/genocide, and then group all the other controversial positions held by my political opponents as being in the same category of clear right/wrong.
But if they really were so clear-cut, they'd be invoked as broadly indisputable, standalone examples just as much as slavery and genocide are.
Slavery was very much an accepted practice by a lot of people then.
There are tons of issues that are not clear cut, like, say, the optimal rate of taxation. It's healthy to argue about those things and try different approaches.
Other things, like trying to subvert democracy, are clear as day.
“Trying to subvert democracy” isn’t really as clear as day, it’s the kind of vague accusation that people throw around about their political opponents.
It's a rhetorical trick to invoke slavery/genocide, and then group all the other controversial positions held by my political opponents as being in the same category of clear right/wrong.
But if they really were so clear-cut, they'd be invoked as broadly indisputable, standalone examples just as much as slavery and genocide are.