Final answer:
Arguments that lack substantiation or ignore historical evidence, such as claims on the universal benefits of expanded federal power or oversimplified labels of FDR, are invalid. Evidence is essential for validating arguments in a historical context, and the impacts of policies like the New Deal and Fair Deal rely on tangible outcomes and records.
Step-by-step explanation:
Looking at the arguments and the criticisms leveled at historical figures and policies, it is evident that evidence plays a crucial role in validating or invalidating a given argument. Take, for example, the claim that 'expanded federal power has led to only peace and prosperity.' This argument can be seen as invalid because historical data show that while federal power expansions during certain periods, such as under FDR's New Deal, contributed to recovery efforts for the nation, it wasn't without criticism and didn't always result in prosperity, e.g., high post-war debts. Similarly, the statement that 'FDR was a socialist who harmed this country' would also be invalid due to lack of thorough evidence, considering FDR's initiatives helped to lift the country out of the Great Depression, and such a statement ignores the complexities of FDR's policies and their mixed effects.
When discussing the validity of arguments, especially in historical contexts, careful analysis of the available evidence and the organization of such evidence is essential. Arguments that ignore contrary evidence, make use of poorly organized evidence, or make broad claims without substantiation are typically regarded as invalid. As seen with Truman's Fair Deal and FDR's New Deal, the support or opposition by the public and the different stakeholders was based on tangible outcomes and viewpoints which can be checked against historical data and evidence.