> I disagree with your premise. I believe that all arguments rest of the degree of truth of their premises I categorically wasn't referring to the choice of pr

> I disagree with your premise. I believe that all arguments rest of the degree of truth of their premises I categorically wasn't referring to the choice of premises, but rather to the cost of finding and evaluating valid arguments themselves, even once premises are settled, for pretty much any interesting/realistic set of premises. That is, in your words, "how those premises lead to their conclusion" The cost of finding a valid argument, or even deciding rather a prop is true without producing a witnessing argument, is more often than not intractable. > No, I'm not [assuming arguments cost nothing -- in terms of money or effort -- to produce] > I'm only interested within this thread about the portion of marketing that is argument construction and analysis, and not in conflating argumentation with rhetoric, marketing, or propaganda. I assert these two statements are in direct contradiction, since I've provided several examples in this thread of how even and especially appeals to valid argumentation can be used as a form of rhetorical manipulation or propaganda. Arguments, formal or informal, are costly to produce and even sometimes costly to evaluate. People with vested interests can and do produce higher-quality arguments than those who don't have the means or simply don't care. Or people who want no action to happen can bog down the conversation. Or people who want something to happen can throw more resources at research and argument construction than their opponents for finite time, and win out. And all of this even if we assume that every prop has a truth value and that finding that truth value is even decidable, which definitely is not the case.