Argument For: 'Not An Argument'

[bacon1253]

Many of you apparently fail at posting basic arguments in this forum and instead post prejudice and opinion.

To assist you in understanding the purpose of a debate here are some tips:

Valid arguments can take one of three forms:
Inductive reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Deductive reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
Reasoning by analogy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_reasoning

Also be aware of self contradictory statements and performative contradictions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction

And finally, please avoid these common fallacies:
Proving a negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"What about the children": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
"Ok for me but not for you": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
"True for me but not for you": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy
"It's always been that way": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
"God/jesus/the government said so": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"X happens when Y happens therefore X causes Y": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
"chaos will break loose if we don't have a government": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear

So after referencing this stickied topic to a friend, he came up with a few points that I'd like a second opinion on. I came up with a few arguments for what he said, but I'd like to see how you, the readers of SFA, would reply as well.

Here is part of his statement:

I dislike the "valid arguments" section. Seems a bit pretentious. Validity is not necessarily guaranteed by form, nor does an argument in practice have to take one of those three forms to be valid, assuming validity can be ascertained or a consensus for subjective validity can be reached. Not to mention that the three argumentative forms you listed in that section are all commonly misused, and some of the most egregious errors in logic are typically associated with such arguments.

But in all seriousness, the hollow-yet-flashy nature of your post does amuse me. You have done well.

This is part of what he said about the post. This is the specific part I'd like to address of his because the rest of what he said was longer and started to seem like unnecessary rambling.
To be perfectly honest, maybe it is because of his excessive babbling, but I became unsure of myself, and I'd like a second opinion.

I know how I may argue against what he said.
My question is: How would you?

 

[wtp]

No the rules are pretty solid. You can't prove something 100%, but the rules make sense.

 

[malakadang]

Lets take this into context.

To assist you in understanding the purpose of a debate here are some tips:

And finally, please avoid these common fallacies:

Everything can be misused, money, power, logical arguments, knowledge.

I agree some things probably would be mis used. Posting an example would help, however nothing is perfect; To strive for perfection is to strive for Utopia, nothing wrong with it aside from the fact your striving for the impossible.

The post here is similar to a crash course. While it has its flaws as do everything, its purpose is to educate people on what is, and isn't and argument.