From what I can tell, the definition of a strong and valid argument is so much similar. An argument is strong if its premises are possibly true and its conclusion false (at the same time); and a valid argument is if its premises is not possibly true and its conclusion false (at the same time). The only difference I can tell is when one argues with passion in their argument it is better than a valid argument with the same conclusion. It is the enthusiasm, speech, and communication skills the one arguing uses that would give the strong argument more persuasive power than the dull, valid argument. A valid argument I hear regularly is reading the news is good for you. A strong argument for this would be: keeping up with the news can keep you better informed of what is going on around you in the business world, government, school, technology, and etc.
I agree that a strong argument is supported by passion rather than just solely on facts. By having emotion is what underlay the expression and confidence that empowers well over what can go against it. Valid arguments are extremely unbiased which is why it is difficult to dispute it. Being well informed in order to create an argument is good; however, having information in order to back up your beliefs will create a well structured, strong argument. If you are ensured about what you are talking about then you will think of everything that you know to back it up and prove that you are not wrong. If you just know facts about a certain subject, but are not passionate about where you stand, you have a very likely chance to be unable to stand your ground and keep your argument true.
ReplyDelete