as s_c said above, a valid argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.
This is getting nonsensical. I do not need to point out the fallacy in your above statement. Please reread what you wrote.
A valid argument must by nature have a true conclusion. That is absolutely correct. However, it is after you derive the true conclusion that you can label an argument valid. Not the other way around.
That is the issue here. The conclusion is being disputed. Two correct premises do NOT automatically derive a conclusion. That is absurd. The act of deriving a conclusion is made by a conscious agent. That conscious agent's conclusion could be valid or invalid regardless.
The moon is orbiting around the earth
The earth is orbiting around the sun
(Perfectly true premises)
Therefore, Adolf Hitler is the head of the C.I.A
(A very false conclusion!)