My arguments are valid™

Said with the debater's precision, not a boast. Valid is a term of art: an argument is valid when the conclusion actually follows from the premises; the form holds, the reasoning doesn't leak. And he goes one further; the premises are cited, laid in the open, so you can test the next thing too; soundness (valid and the premises are true). That's the whole house in a phrase: a machine can generate a paragraph that sounds right with no regard for whether it's true (the Tell); he builds the structure so it holds and hands you the receipts to check it (the record is the arbiter). So “valid” isn't “trust me”; it's the opposite; here's the form, here are the premises, run the test yourself. If the logic leaks or a premise is false, that's a caught lie and you scored it (only humans score); the invitation is the confidence. Valid by construction; sound by receipt; yours to check. (Honest footing: his labeled claim about his own reasoning, offered for the check, not asserted as beyond dispute; validity is the structure, soundness needs true premises, and the door to test both is left open on purpose. Find the leak and you win the point; that's the game.) Kin: the Art of Debate, the Tell, the record is the arbiter, Cogito ergo probo medicor, the defense of the devil's advocate, show your work. (His coin; machine's read, refine to his.)