As our own Wildcat has pointed out, the semantic components of a discussion are really important.
That was made abundantly evident in this thread ... or rather a sub-topic that was weaved throughout it.
It is evident to me that we cannot even agree on what the term "logic" means, nor what constitutes a "valid," "strong" or other type of "argument."
My background of logic comes from mathematics, so I tend to use terms and concepts borrowed from mathematical logic(perhaps with some customization--it has been a while since I got my Math degree).
But "logic" is also taught in philosophy and the liberal-arts, and sometimes also taught as part of "rhetoric" in some fine-arts programs.
The conotations are often different (though not incompatible). In fact, despite the subtle differences, many of its uses are very similar.
This leads to situations where people simply argue around each other even when people are in complete agreement.
As someone who like the exercise of comming to an understanding, I am quite OK with (even fond of) this. However, IMO, the confusion often causes disharmony where it need not exist.
So lets discuss "logic."
What is it?
How is it used (im)properly? (Please provide examples)
What is related to "logic" but is seperate from it?