1) Arguments can be true if they follow a consistent methodology; there is no such a thing as an "accidental validity". 
2) Any argument proposed by a man can be rejected as invalid if he/she does not follow or understand a consistent methodology. 
3) Scientific arguments require universality. 
4) Any scientific argument proposed by a scientist can be rejected if the scientist does not understand or follow the requirement of universality. 
5) A scientist who constantly acts in contradiction to his stated scientific theories shows that he does not understand or follow the requirement of universality. 
6) Since the scientist does not follow or understand the requirement of universality, none of his arguments or conclusions can be valid, since the concept of validity only applies to the methodology, not the conclusion. 
7) Such a person can no longer be called a scientist, since he has shown by his actions he does not understand or follow the requirements of his scientific arguments. 

What can be learnt by everyone from the application of this argument to NLH? 

Consequently what are the adjustments to to the 7 points to create a version tailored to creating arguments in poker?

Can this help us in creating arguments in this forum?