Which legal term defines facts admitted for the sake of argument but not as valid claims?

The term that defines facts admitted for the sake of argument but not as valid claims is "demurrer." A demurrer is a legal response in which a party asserts that even if the facts presented by the opposing party are true, they do not establish a legally sufficient claim. It essentially challenges the legal sufficiency of the opponent's arguments without necessarily contesting the facts themselves. By using a demurrer, a party can engage with the legal issues without having to dispute every fact, allowing the court to focus on the legal implications rather than the veracity of the claims being made.

In contrast, a deposition refers to a witness's out-of-court testimony that is recorded for later use, usually during the discovery phase of litigation. Dictum refers to a remark made in a judicial opinion that is not essential to the decision of the case and does not have the force of law. A digest typically refers to a summary or compilation of court cases or legal principles, often used for research purposes. None of these terms convey the concept of admitting facts solely for argumentative purposes as effectively as a demurrer does.