Nothing hurts the process of truth seeking more than failed or deceiving arguments. The promotion of any falsity results in distrust and dissolves credibility. So, if you want to avoid fraudulence or apparent ignorance, I suggest you understand what the process of argument really is. Of course, if your goal actually is to deceive or sham, hopefully, at least, with a strong comprehension of argument, you’ll be more successful achieving these ends! Morals are an aside for now; first things first, let’s focus on making arguments which don’t result in immediate dismissal.
So, an argument is defined as a logical construct consisting of a set of premises, or declared propositions, along with a declared conclusion. A deductive argument uses straightforward logic to assert that a conclusion is the logical consequence of these premises. When these premises are certain, the conclusion should follow with certainty. If there is a fault in the logical reasoning, there exists a fallacy, or a logical failure. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can only suggest that conclusions are supported by their premises, which can result in generalizations for theory-building. Inductive reasoning is not deductively valid and is not formal, but informal, logic. It’s important to understand the differences between conclusions invalidated by fallacy, those proved with certainty, and those proved without certainty.
Strong and weak induction are the two types of inductive reasoning which lead to general, uncertain conclusions. If I say, “cats like to play with strings,” I’m not lying, but I’m not declaring that with 100% certainty, either. This is a strong inductively reasoned conclusion, and it forms a probable conclusion by simply inducing a universal generalization from the particular. If I say, “I know with certainty all cats like to play with strings,” then I’m being deceiving, even if I’ve never heard of a cat who didn’t like strings. If it’s only ever been observed that cats do like string (premise), then when I say, “cats like to play with string,” what I’m really saying is, “[all observed cats]…”. If you find a cat that hates strings, then I have to change that to, “[most cats]…”, which really means “[most observed cats]…”, because I still cannot say, “[with certainty, most cats]…”.
Weak induction, which makes a conclusion only possible from true premises, takes a specific observation to draw a general conclusion. This can be as ridiculous as saying, “stupid people cannot read, therefore all people who cannot read are stupid.” While the premise may be certain, there are plenty of reasons a highly intelligent person could not read. The logical connection of premise to conclusion here is false and the only certainty in the argument is that some illiterates are stupid. Of course, if the conclusion cannot be proven false, then it is actually possible all illiterates are stupid! Try disproving this weak conclusion: “rain is falling from the sky, therefore all rain falls from the sky.”
As inductive arguments, these arguments fail to “informal fallacy,” where the premises fail to support the proposed conclusion. Their merit is dependent on the inductive strength of the connection of premise to conclusion. Straightforward deductive arguments can also fail to informal fallacy if a premise is hidden or omitted. Along with informal fallacies are “formal fallacies,” which also affect both inductive and deductive arguments. These fallacies are always wrong because they are non sequiturs, or arguments with false logical structures in proving the conclusion from the premises.
A frequent type of formal fallacy is an ad hominem argument that attacks a person making a claim rather than the claim itself. An example of this would be to say, “Americans should not invade foreign countries, kill their leaders, and convert their citizens to Christianity, because that was a suggestion put forth by Ann Coulter, who is a batshit-crazy psychopath.” Even though it’s likely true that Ann Coulter is a batshit-crazy psychopath, you must counter the actual claim that America should invade every non-Christian country and mass murder their governments to avoid making a formal fallacy. Besides, stop being mean. Even though she frequently calls for ruthless genocides and shameless suppressions of freedoms, and unpredictably shakes and twitches violently while reciting incoherent Satanic chants, she’s probably a very loving, generous, and gentle soul at heart.
Additionally, arguments have or don’t have validity and soundness. Arguments which fail to logical fallacy are invalid, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. However, because a valid argument could still have a false conclusion, soundness is used for clarification. A sound argument must have both A: True premises and B: A valid argument. The resulting conclusion of a sound argument is therefore always true. An explanation is the inverse of an argument, since it tries to determine the premises of why something is true. An argument, on the other hand, tries to show that something will be true based on premises and their resulting consequences. A look at frequently made fallacies warrants further investigation, which I will save for later! 
Right now if you’re reading this, you live in a reality where infinity exists. How do I know this? Read this post for an explanation of a never ending infinite in 3d. Even if you aren’t convinced your tangible reality exists on an infinite plane (itself a difficult argument to make), you can still simulate genuine infinity on a computer with ease. That simulation exists in the world of ideas, and the world of ideas is as real as your own senses. Yes, an idea is as tangible as the world you touch! The world you physically interact with can only be perceived through your senses, each of which is easily overridden. What you see on television are only visuals, not true reality manifesting in front of you (probably 
), but these visuals affect you through the same sense pathways “tangible” events do. In fact, it’s arguably impossible to make the case you’re not in a simulation or dream right now. Since your reality is defined by your senses which are permeable by an infinite realm of ideas, your reality is in fact infinite!!
Now that that’s out of the way, I don’t think it’s too difficult to argue we like to experience new things. What if every song on the radio were the same? Even worse, what if every measure was a repeat of the measure before it? Artistic repetition is along the lines of the concept an immortal astronaut stuck infinitely in space with only his own thoughts, a probably hellish experience. It’s creation, either scientific or artistic, which pushes life (and the economy) forward, providing new opportunities and ideas. Scientific pursuits are often fairly linear and involve the acquisition of knowledge through dedicated data accumulation and experimentation. Artistic creation, however, is less straightforward. I tried to craft a definition of art years ago, and while I don’t remember precisely, I know it was something along the lines of a creation which either resembles the perfection of a concept or deliberately enhances, distorts, or engulfs an observer’s reality.
Since the outpouring of the infinite trove of ideas is mere noise, the scientist must attempt to make sense of this data, and an artist must organize ideas in a fashion that creates an artistic construct. Science moves forward in a state of logic, blazing truths and falsehoods in its path, while art moves beyond logic and pushes easily beyond an observer’s capacity. The possible constructs of organized noise are endless, and by definition all their possibilities already exist. It’s only a matter of organizing these endless opportunities and promoting them into reality.
If you focus your energies on becoming a successful creator (or noise organizer?), boundaries neglect to exist, and the world acquires additional value with the gains of novel art or craft. If you focus your energy on rehashing existing creations without adding new technology or experiences, you may feed off the interest of that which you’re emulating, but it’s ultimately a very limiting strategy. Instead, drive for perfection, or artistic complexity, in your own unique pursuits. You’re rarely going to beat someone at their own game, and there is rarely a need to. Besides, nobody is playing the same game or even has the same goals. The thirst for fresh experiences is insatiable, and the creative vacancies waiting to be filled are limitless. Instead of competing, add to the world and fill in these vacancies!
Eclectic art magazines are flooded with new ideas on every page. Every new artistic exploration of a juxtaposition or manufactured reality is inherently interesting as long as it’s not self-contradicting, which can be a feat in itself. If you keep exploring and creating, fascinating results are virtually guaranteed, and the world becomes a more interesting and enjoyable place.