Yes, for the conclusion of a deductive argument to be true the logic has to
be valid and the premises, aka 'facts', have to be true. One can begin
examining an argument from either point - the premises or the logic. If a
premise is false or the logic invalid, then the conclusion hasn't been
proven.1 Consequently, a person's reasoning can be flawed because
their facts are wrong or their logic is invalid or both.
So when I wrote about 'flawed reasoning', it means I found facts and/or
logic of the reasoning offered in some or all of those sites flawed. In some
cases, the facts were "not established". Declaring one party of a debate is
"begging the question" is declaring, 'You're assuming a fact to be true that
hasn't been proven / proven to my satisfaction.'
While doing a book tour author Juan Enriquez observed that the people who
read the best-selling "Left Behind" series and those who read Dan Brown's
best-selling 'Robert Langdon' series would not deign to read the other. So
if you had never read either one and were trying to decide which to read,
just look to what folks were reading each series. Which group are you most
like? Decision made.
Which brings us to D'Sousa. Now and then, I've heard him on a news program,
but nothing memorable. I've read one or two reviews on one or two of his
books. I've not read any of his works, because time is limited and I've
assessed the worthiness of his reasoning by the company he attracts.
Essentially they come across as folks like yourself who believe they know
the "TRUTH" and anyone that doesn't agree with them is, at best, brain-
washed by liberal society, etc. This isn't my cup of tea.
1 A particular conclusion might be true, but if the given
argument / reasoning is flawed, then the conclusion sits in limbo waiting a