Qualities of being truthful, logical, reasonable and accurate are just basic prerequisites for a valid argument or perspective. It doesn't mean that the perspective or argument is valuable, and detractors don't need to prove that a violation of any of these or other base prerequisites. Far from a benchmark for excellence, if an argument is untruthful, illogical, unreasonable or inaccurate, then it simply fails.

Thus, first, a question. Assuming you agree with the title, how frequently does it seem to you that these prerequisites are treated as being far more important than appropriate? I commonly hear people demanding that their logic be refuted, or that "people don't like the truth", and many other such comments that make me question it, thus inspiring this thread.

I already covered some things to consider in evaluating an argument or perspective in this thread that applies here which I won't rehash, but they're relevant so I'll leave a link: "Arrangement of Truth"

1. The Abundance of Logic & Truth

Logic & Truth are overabundant. There are infinite factors to select and arguments to make, being truthful and logical are just basic prerequisites for a valid perspective. Even if a perspective is valid, that doesn't mean it's useful, effective or robust. The selection criteria for which truths are included or focused should be carefully considered. A perspective can be flawed or ineffective in many ways that won't produce a falsehood.

Logic is a very low prerequisite, as an illogical argument is simply egregious, it implies incoherency. The logic of one's argument can be evaluated in a myriad of ways, judging its quality and effectiveness is complex and goes well beyond coherency & validity.

An approach that is logical, reasonable and valid is far from immune from failure and may even represent the attempt of a novice without proficiency or capability. A robust perspective will contain a specific logic, merely being "logical" is totally inadequate. Attacking a perspective or argument on its logic is an option, but it's not always necessary to do so, and mightn't even be advisable in some cases.

2. Reason for Invocation

It's not good enough for an argument to be merely relevant, there needs to be a good reason for why it's being made. Introducing an argument that is unnecessary or unhelpful should be avoided, and its value can be dismissed on these grounds. There are a limited number of factors that can be considered in any one case, and the overall quality is critical for high-quality analysis.

3. Characteristics of the Approach

Though separate paths may lead to the same destination, that doesn't make them equal. A poor argument can be one with undesirable but avoidable characteristics such as being confusing, distracting, unconvincing, disorganised, and so on.

4. The Selection Bias

I would argue this is the core challenge of producing a high-quality perspective, it is the decision-making process that dictates which factors are included and in what role. This is what determines success where it can be measured, and it is difficult because of the abundance of factors to include, and the even greater freedom one has in how to use each factor. One aims to understand the goal, and understand the most critical & influential factors, why they're important, and how to use this knowledge.

This list is far from exhaustive but should be sufficient to make my case. In conclusion, other than meeting these prerequisites, their importance is debatable, since a perspective or argument that doesn't meet them is just invalid and not a benchmark for quality. One should avoid being impressed with their argument for just fulfilling these requirements. One shouldn't think there is a need to disqualify arguments using these prerequisites. Producing a valid argument, ideally, should be merely habitual.