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 claim cites that if an argument is convincing enough to change opponents’ and doubters’ mind, it will demonstrate the real value of the idea. In following reason, it is mentioned that defending against other points of views, especially the opposed ones, can depict the real value of an idea. In latter paragraphs I will debate over the claim and then answer what I really think of the reason on which the claim is based.

I agree with the stated proposal that if someone can convince other logical people in an special subject , definitely, he won the argument. Considering that opponents are concerning about the subject somehow, the idea defender have to clarify the subject first by scrutinize the idea in detail to support it properly. This shows his capability in illustrating the vague parts of the debate. Besides, convincing opponents, even doubters shows that the defender’s reasons are justifiable enough to depict the high value of the idea.

When there are many opposing viewpoints, turning the general ideas sound problematic somehow. So, being resolute in reasoning in an argument plays key role. If someone is impatient in convincing others, he will lose the argument regardless of how valuable his subject is. Historically, many great scientists were so determined to convince faculty members in order to change a banal belief like what Einstein did in proving his theory of photon waves. Before his theory being proposed, all scientists believed that photon move directly. As soon as, he published his theory many doubted or refuted it. He had to journey hundreds of miles to attend in conferences, answer the opponents and show the experiments. This culminate in universal consent about moving light both vertically and sinuously.

However, as far as the reason is concerned I don’t agree with saying it is the “best way” to test an idea just by means of being convincing or rationalizing. Considering many doubters or opponents in special subjects such as religion are biased due to dictated thoughts, no one can easily turn their beliefs. So, a scientist may never win an argument even by bringing many supports or reasons. For example, Galileo Galilee could not convince his contemporary scientists who were prejudiced by church rules. On the other hand , there are many politicians ,for instance, who know various method to change others minds or defeat the opponents but this won’t approve the value of his ideas either.

In the final analysis, be convincing in an argument may be one of the most important factors of an idea and may result in winning the argument and even converting doubters’ mind but it is not necessarily the best way because there are many other variable factors dealing with value of an idea. So this is not a written on a stone sentence that convincing opponents will show the value of the argument.