Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.

The writer of the issue claims that the power of an argument in convincing opposite points of view is the best criterion for evaluation of it. The writer further reasons that the only way to really understand the value of an idea is by being obliged to defend opposite views. In other words, there is no other way to discern the value of argument’s idea. In what follows I will first discuss my response to the claim and then explain what I think of the reason on which the claim is based.

First of all, I disagree with the writer’s assertion that the ability of an argument to defend opposite points of view is the best way to test an argument. I believe this claim is over generalized and it might be some cases in which we find better ways to test our argument. In addition, the writer did not give any proof about his claim and there are reasons against the writer’s assertion. For instance, consider a controversial political argument. Undoubtedly, there is someone who might know nothing about the argument and don’t have enough information and practical knowledge to give any idea about the argument. I think there might be some cases in which only experts are capable to argue. More than this, according to statistics in psychological research papers, in such cases when one is not familiar with an argument or don’t have enough information about it, people generally contradict with the argument or they give no idea and stand neutral and they rarely give positive responses. So testing an argument only by opposite views is not generally a good criterion for evaluation of it.

Second, the writer did not give us any information about the people who contend the argument and the subject of the argument. People are different in beliefs and emotions. To clearly explain my point, consider this argument “There is no God and the whole universe runs accidentally“. We might encounter a person who is really emotional and his discussion is based completely on emotion or one might be very religious person and contradict this assertion without any scientific and logical reasons. Also, there are some people who always argue everything in such a manner to get some advantages. They might prefer their benefits prior to logical reasons. So these kinds of opposite reactions have no value in evaluating the argument’s idea.

Nevertheless, as far as the reason is concerned I do not agree with the writer of the issue to some extent. An argument might have a variety of subjects and people who give their opinion about it are very different. There are some arguments in which giving the same points of view and alternative explanations fortifying the assertion is the best way to prove the value of those ideas. Although, in some cases opposite ideas could really improve the argument and validate its ideas. For example, in scientific arguments different approaches and interpretations by other people might give us new ideas and innovative ways to improve the argument or might lead us to tons of new ideas and future researches which one might never notices solely.

In the final analysis, I believe this is a very general case and we can’t give a firm position but need of experts in any argument is essential. Further, the writer of the issue did not give any information about subject of the argument and people who discuss. As a result, for some reasons I clearly discussed in the body paragraphs such as emotions, benefits of the individuals and lack of knowledge, we cannot conclude that only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.