When you are building an argument for an issue that is significant to you, do you think it is more important t

Question

When you are building an argument for an issue that is significant to you, do you think it is more important to be sound or valid?

Answer 1

"Fen-yand held up his walking stick and addressed the assembly: 'Whoever understands this walking stick thoroughly can end his quest for Zen.'"
-Zen koan

Answer 2

I'm not sure if you're using the terms in a stricly logical sense, but if so then it is far better for the argument to be sound. Logically, any sound argument is also valid. That is, soundness implies validity. By definition, a valid argument is one in which the premises entail the conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the premises entail the conclusion, and are also true (or at least accepted by all parties). So, if your argument is sound you don't need to worry about validity because validity is a necessary condition for soundness.
Another way to look at this is to take examples. The following is a valid argument proving the existence of unicorns:
P1: If the King of France is bald, then unicorns exist
P2: The King of France is bald.
C: Therefore, unicorns exist.
It is clear that this is a bad argument, but it is valid since the premises entail the conclusion. However, with a sound argument you can't prove such an absurd conclusion.

Answer 3

If something were important to me and I was building an argument on the issue it would be important to me to be sound & valid. What would be the point of an argument which was sound but not valid or vice versa? Doesn't it have to be both? If you argue well, but you're way off base (basically wrong), then that's pointless. If you have a valid point but can't argue it well (can't convince anyone anyway, leave too many holes), then that's no use. Has to be both or nothing!

If it's insignificant, then I wouldn't really care how I came across & probably wouldn't waste the energy to argue anyway!

Answer 4

Are you serious?

A sound argument has two characteristics:
1. It is valid
2. Its premises are true.

A valid argument is not significant at all, unless it is also sound. Consider the following example:

If pennies were gold, I'd be rich.
Pennies are gold.
Therefore, I'm rich.

This argument is Valid. But it is of little use, since the second premise is false.

Answer 5

Valid arguments consist of premises w/c must be true, and a conclusion that logically flows from these premises.

So, which is more important? There are 2. One is the reality or truthfulness of the premises. The other is the validity of the conclusion.

Answer 6

Sometimes, if you are emotional about the topic, it is hard to be sound. You could also come across soundly, but not have a valid point. So, valid is probably more important, but both is better.

Answer 7

Both... especially if you want to be heard. Your argument needs to be sound... both factually, and logically. As far as validity, you need to make sure it's something that will strike home. Make it an argument that won't easily be forgotten....

Remember, anyone can be right... it all depends on how you argue your case.

Answer 8

i think of being sound is greater significant. in case you're screaming on the suitable of your lungs information and figures, you only sound like a raving lunatic...as a result making your element much less vaild. i've got gained a variety arguments with people being sound than with having all of my information at the same time ranting and raving them. (hint: once you're sound and calm, evidently which you be attentive to greater whether you do not have each and every of the information...tried and real) terrific of success to you!! :)

Answer 9

Valid.

Answer 10

whats the difference?