(no subject)

You cannot make a proper argument without itself being logically coherent.

Case in point: If someone writes an 200-pages thesis on 'I wish to argue that a round-square has the following properties...', I expect to see 200 pages of 'A round-square' does not exist. Otherwise it is fail. The statement itself is logically incoherent, thusly I do not even need to consider the arguments nor the supporting premises to determine if you are correct or not.

Now, if you are logically coherent, then the issue would be if what your argue is ideally plausible. 'I wish to argue that we can travel from Earth to Mars within 2 minutes.' is logically coherent, but not ideally plausible. Shortest distance between Earth and Mars is about 54.5 million km. Light takes around 182 seconds to travel that distance. We cannot go faster than light. Thus it is impossible.

Now, if the argument is for us to travel from Earth to Mars within 3 minutes, it is ideally plausible, but reallistically impossible. Even allowing the fact that we can travel at the speed of light, we are not able to accelerate instantaneous to obtain that velocity. So, fail.

Get it? That is why all 3 tests must be passed first for an argument to be valid. I cannot imagine why you would think that it is not important for something to be logically coherent.

/rant