To me, a flaw is a result in the inconsistencies or a lack of coherence developed from the flow of an argument. For example, a bleeding obviously inconsistent statement like: a person claiming to have gone to the moon, said he discovered the moon had no water, but than claim to have enjoyed a swim in a pool. In the absence of fact (i.e. whether the claim of “no water” or “having a swim” are indeed true), we could make an argument that that there appears to be flaw, or inconsistencies, in the logic of the statement. In this bleeding obvious statement we don’t need to have the life experience of going to the moon to note the inconsistency. So a debate can then be had for the originator of the statement about the inconsistencies. At this juncture, one need not necessarily come to right/wrong aspect of the statement. But if the debate stops at that point, then the best guess is the statement is flawed.

At a later stage if indeed the originator could verify that there was no water on the moon and that he/she had a swim in the space craft, than the statement could turn out to be right. Hence, the point about a debate is discovery that arises from a inconsistencies.

Personally, I tend to steer clear of the right/wrong view of things. To me rightness or wrongness has much to do with deviation from the “facts” about a point or from a particular viewpoint. But the problem with the “facts” is how verifiable the source of the “facts” are. That can be tricky one. So when one speaks of right/wrong it can only be taken with a benefit of a doubt.

To summarise, when I said something is flawed, I do not mean something is wrong. Rather it means inconsistencies.

PS: For a real world example of what I mean by flaws. Consider the statement by a Minister, Raymond Lee urging against the politicisation of transport issues but then rejecting proposal to have fare revision before elections. Disregarding the right or wrong of the minister to reject the proposal, can anyone spot the potential flaws or inconsistencies in the statement? Does one need a political science degree to spot the potential flaw? Does one need to be a consumer of public transport to spot potential flaw? (NOTE: These are rhetorical questions to illustrate a point not a new thread for debate).

Regarding the final sentence in your reply, I do agree with that. However, I have a counter question for you. Where do ‘flaws’ come from? Some people might offer logic as an answer but what exactly makes ‘logic’ necessarily right? I am of the opinion that it’s a general consensus that makes what we understand to be ‘logic’ right. I’m more inclined to think that when people disagree, it’s not because of flaws or bad logic but rather, differences in assumptions to begin with. Whether the assumptions are “right” or “wrong” is of course another completely different matter.