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.Write a res

Although I concur that only by defending an idea against contrasting viewpoints a person indeed discover the real value of that idea, I disagree with the claim that the best way to test an argument is its capability to persuade someone who adheres to an opposing viewpoint because even a sound argument may not be able to convince person who is unwilling to do it.

To begin with, perhaps, only by protecting our argument we are able to discover the value of the idea. The history of science has many of such examples, for instance, in my opinion, one of the greatest scholars of modernity - Albert Einstein initially presented theory which had a mathematical flaw. After his opponents pointed on it, he rethought his work and refined it significantly. This improved theory, which is named the theory of relativity, has changed our understanding of the world and its laws. Perhaps, without necessity to defend his argument against opponents’ doubts, the great man would have not created it in the way we know it today. In other words, this practice gives indispensable experience which probably cannot be acquired by an alternative way.

At the same time, people's belief that a coherent argument may unquestionably convince person who sticks to opposing view is doubtful. For example, a great number of fossil evidences have been collected by biologists as proofs of Darwin's theory of evolution. Today this concept is to be conspicuous for public as the fact that our planet has form of a sphere; however, creationists, who believe that the Bible represents a real history of Earth, manage to dismiss the evolution despite all available proofs. From their prospect any evidences are created by Satan to case doubt in their hearts or by God in order to check their faith. As a result, although a plethora logic, genetic and biological events exists and many new ones may be found in the future those believers will blindly ignore them. Consequently, even a strong argument cannot persuade a person who unwilling to accept it.

However, if a person is open-minded and sensitive to new data, an argument which is supported properly may actually convince an opponent. This is a widespread practice among scientists even more it is a crucial requirement without which science will not be the science in the way we get used to perceive it today. To illustrate this idea we may return to the previous example. Before Darwin published his revolutionary work, idea of evolution were unknown and majority of scholars adhered to the idea that biblical story of creation represents the reality. However, after Darwin put his arguments and evidences those scientists, at least a great part of them, accepted the theory and changed their mind about the issue. Nevertheless, we cannot aver that ability of an argument to convince is the best test for it because of reasons mentioned in the second paragraph.

In conclusion, although I agree that the best way to learn more profoundly about your view is to defend it against the doubts and contrasting views of rivals, I disagree with the claim that the best test of an argument is its capability to persuade a person who adhere to a distinct viewpoint because even sound argument may not convince person who is unwilling to cast doubt on his or her own beliefs.