>Arguments aren't created in a vacuum, and neither is the lion's share of what makes an argument "good". This is true even discounting the fact that the dominant measure of argumentative quality is largely a function of persuasion.
I'm not sure what all of this means. The arguments I'm referring to are formal operations on premises. Premises are the environment that arguments live in, and that's not a vacuum. One party claims to be right, states its premises, and how those premises lead to their conclusion. Attacking that argument means pointing out flaws in the reasoning or the premises. I'm not talking about convincing people, I'm talking about being right.
I don't understand how the rest of your comment relates to argumentation. It sounds more like a comment on marketing - and while marketing may use different arguments of varying quality, it is not in itself an argument.
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so."
reply