What is a good argument vs a bad argument?

Akhenaten

Any argument given by John_C_87 or Plaffelvohfen should be considered by definition as bad arguments. I will apply to Webster's dictionary for them the change the definition. lol

Akhenaten

Any argument given by John_C_87 or Plaffelvohfen should be considered by definition as bad arguments. I will apply to Webster's dictionary for them the change the definition. lol

ZeusAres42

Akhenaten said:

Any argument given by John_C_87 or Plaffelvohfen should be considered by definition as bad arguments. I will apply to Webster's dictionary for them the change the definition. lol

Oh dear.  Do you realize what you just did there?

AlexOland

 A good argument has to be relevant, well-constructed and logically sound. 
 A bad argument is usually one or more of these:
1- It is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In the debates I had, a lot of people stated some seemingly relevant but in reality irrelevant facts. And because they are "seemingly relevant" you might sometimes fall in their trap and try to refute the fact they have stated. Theists do this a lot. 

2- It is constructed in a complex manner in order to make it harder to refute. I have debated a theist not so long ago, one that used analogies instead of arguments. I persisted that he should state his actual argument in a normal manner but he refused. I was debating on his channel so I knew if I just left, he would consider himself victorious. Anyway, I debated him for 10 minutes or so and managed to get him to say this: "Texts are written by people. People are conscious and intelligent. So the universe has to have a creator who is conscious and intelligent.". I have no idea how, but he thought that this was a logical argument and persisted on it. 

3- It just doesn't make any sense. I don't think I need an explanation for this. Sometimes the arguments are pure nonsense. I think it is called a non-sequitur? The logic just does not follow. A roommate of mine said this once: "You were inside when I got out, I just got in and you are still inside. So you could not have gone out.". Sometimes it is hard to catch but most of the times it is really obvious that it is wrong.

Plaffelvohfen

That's about it...  

TKDB

In theory that the legalization of marijuana would be a good argument? 

The good things about that Law?

It benefits the marijuana industry?

It benefits those individuals, who are looking for some probable votes, from some of the pro marijuana supporting crowds?

It benefits the criminals, and the offenders who were let out of jail, because their drug of choice was legalized, that previously lead, to their previous incarnations?

It benefits, those apparent and previously poor states, that even though they already had various taxation and revenue coffers in place? 
That the individual taxation and revenue coffers, created from the legalization of marijuana, means that those states, will no longer suffer from their previous taxation, and revenue shortages?

The bad argument?

No one, that I know of who is pro marijuana, or is pro marijuana industry oriented, has produced, or provided, any real world, interview material about this particular subject matter?

That shows how negatively that an adults, marijuana use, around unborn babies, newborn babies, kids, children, or family members in general, are OK, with living with, being born into, or growing up with, or having to tolerate, an adults, criminal, or an offenders marijuana uses around them? 

Plaffelvohfen

See, the above is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in an argumentation...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Simply being that you dont have one counter argument for it?

What's more important, the legalization of recreational marijuana, in an individual state?

Or the kids, children, or the families in that same state?