Posted by isaac on January 27, 2002 at 20:37:37:
In Reply to: Re: You two have to agree with each other posted by Bartholomew on January 27, 2002 at 18:21:13:
: No, your definition includes what Isaac's does not: it says that an argument only needs to be "designed to assert or prove" something to qualify as an argument.
an argument is designed to assert a certain conclusion. ie, "to assert or prove something".
: Isaac's definition includes what yours does not: it specifies that the statements must consist of at least one premise and at least one conclusion.
premises and conclusions are declarative statements.
: Actually, I don't need to show that every criticism is an argument. I just want to do that for clarity of my point.
if you don't need to show that, then why do you care? and if you do, well, good luck.
: All I really need to show is that every criticism needs to be error-checked, and I can do that without touching the definition of an argument.
bart, do me a favor, will ya? prove that 2+2=4. when you're done, post the proof.
isaac