Is it more important to be sound or valid in an argument?

Answer 1

Valid is more useful, since it can be proven true. It is a valid statement that it rained. Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid, no middle ground.
Sound is more for inductive reasoning where you have to build an arguement. I have a sound argument for believing homeschooling is more effective than public schools, but I cannot prove it to be valid. I think the latter is more important since most complex ideas are based on sound reasoning (abortion, death penalty, drug legalization, etc) instead of something factually proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Answer 2

Oh boy, what an outstanding question!

Okay,'sound' means something that makes sense; e.g.,
"I always make sure that my answers are exactly what I believe in; or, at least, what I believe to be true." Unfortunately, making sense is very subjective. What I perceive to be sensible may be perceived by others as not. Therefore, my arguments may not be sound to all the listeners, only to those who are on the same page as I am.

Being 'valid' means something is based on factual information or on verifiable claims, e.g., "I always make sure that my answers are based on actual experiences and/or published data. Most likely, if I make valid arguments, my listeners would be more receptive to my ideas. It is hard to argue against valid points; the best you can do is accept it or not but you cannot question its veracity.

That said, I think it is more important to be valid in an argument.

Answer 3

If you don't have a valid point, the argument is over

When you get to name calling, a valid argument is done

Answer 4

you advise sound OR valid, spectacular? i choose you're starting to be to be the two. yet whilst no longer, it style of feels to me that maximum folk want /hear to / consider arguments that are "sound" -- that seem significant. this would properly be a tough question however...