I both disagree and agree with your high-school self.
Learning to recognize common failure modes, and developing a common language for talking about them with each other, is a relatively cost-effective way to improve the average validity of my arguments, in much the same way that reducing infant mortality is a relatively cost-effective way to increase average lifespan.
It doesn't do anything to improve the validity of my most valid arguments, though. Depending on how reliably I reach that maximum and how high that maximum is, that might be OK. Or it might not, and an entirely different approach (like teaching what valid arguments are) might work better.
And the relationship between learning-to-X and teaching-X-in-high-school is of course a whole different problem.
All of that said, I'm curious: how would you go about teaching what a valid argument is, to a degree that "don't trust anything else" is actually good advice to follow?
I do not know. To be honest, my high school self had a strong tendency to overestimate the rationality and learning potential of the general population.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.