What constitutes a valid argument and how do I construct one?

Nope. See, the chart shows its a process.
>Begin by name calling, then attack the credibility of the author, respond to his tone, and open up your side with a simple contradiction, then offer a counterargument, and then head to refutation.
Or you could start at the refutation, then proceed to insult the author.

...

This

I don't get it.

Elephants aren't pink. If the premise is false than the conclusions drawn by that premise can also be false.

scratch that just looked this up, valid arguments aren't the same thing as true arguments apparently

But the argument is still logically valid.

But it is wrong, because it is not SOUND.

True premise and true conclusion. An argument consists of a series of at least two truth evaluable statements, with one being able to function as a conclusion, and one as a premise.
t. About 5 weeks into Logic 101
Wanna hear about counterexamples?

Wait fuck me a valid argument doesn't need true premises.

But a sound one does.

Rhetoric is really all that matters. That's why Nietzsche will always been more popular than, say, Aristotle, since people pick up the latter and say, "You talk like fag."

Things I agree with are valid arguments, things I disagree with are not.

Now you're getting it! :D

Unless your going into an academic field, constructing good rational arguments will get you nowhere in life. Better instead learn how to manipulate others irrationality, to your benefit and abandon all reason.

I can't tell if this is irony. surely no one actually misunderstands something this simple.

the central point here is the one in the center of the disagreement. if you mean to correct a person who is mostly right then obviously you can't disagree with the argument as a whole.

rhetoric is a substitude of logic for people with no self-respect. it does the same job with more effort and less awareness. you only think of logic as unconvincing because of people who think it will overcome emotions with no further effort. they think that because generally it's a pretty good method of convincing people.

>I can't tell if this is irony
Senpai, he's clearly being facetious

the line begins to blur when you've been here long enough

5 years and counting, still able to distinguish sarcasm

what if you've just missed the genuinely retarded people?

You're ignoring the ever present possibility that he may in fact be one or multiple of the retarded people you've just mentioned.

It's Veeky Forums, we're all retarded. Some people just accept it

you don't need one. If you disagree with someone just tell them to go back to red dit.

Agreeing with Stefan's constructed moral framework is the only way to craft a true argument.
Stefan's positions are such untenable truths that to contradict them renders such a position not even an argument,not even a logically coherent position. fool. so basically disagree=not an argument. quite handy
nah stef is done with that shit he is cool now!

Or /pol/, amirite :^)