The best test of an argument is the argument's ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take.

It is popularly believed that the best way to verify an argument is its capacity to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint. This prospect has many proponents, perhaps, because we intuitively accept that if an argument is coherent and supported properly, it will be accepted by the arguer. However, as far as I am concerned this claim only partly holds true, in fact, even the strongest argument may not convince an opponent as well as the acceptance of the argument by the other side does not make the argument automatically correct. Therefore, I disagree with the issue.

To begin with, we live in modern society and we get used to the idea that if a point is supported properly, it should be accepted. In fact, our society is based on this idea, for instance, our justice is widely based on the assumption that if an attorney manages to demonstrate that a person is innocent, the suspect person should be exonerated; Moreover, the similar principle is accepted in science because scholars in their relentless search for knowledge attempt to be open-minded to new information which is supported by strong evidence, for instance, recently a new planet of the solar system has been found via studying the movement of asteroids and Pluto. Although no one has ever seen this planet, the scientists have accepted its existence. In other words, we believe in the power of coherent argumentation. However, may we aver that this is a universal principle which works in all situations?

The answer on this question is "no" because even with a myriad of evidence you may not convince a person who is unwilling to listen to you. Perhaps, the best illustration of this situation may be found in a hot argument between evolutionists and creationists. Although, scientists have a plethora of material proofs such as remainders of dinosaurs, people who perceive the events which are described in the scripture as reality dismiss all evidence available. The creationists may assert that it is deals of Devil who wants to seduce them or of the God who desires to check their faith. In both cases, the evidence of evolution and natural selection is neglected. In other words, the proposed policy is not the best test of an argument.

Furthermore, the ability of argument to persuade a person does not make it automatically right. For instance, for thousands of years people believed that the sun and the starts orbiting the planet. This argument was based on the evidence that the celestial bodies move during the night as well as the sun and an observer obviously stands still. This evidence was enough to sustain this myth for centuries. In other words, the likeliness exists that argument is based on false evidence or right evidence is interpreted mistakenly, consequently, the ability to convince the opposite side may not mean that an argument is accurate.

In conclusion, although we often accept the idea that an ability of argument is the best test to verify it, in reality, even the strongest argument with solid evidence may not persuade someone who tends to neglect by prospects which differ from his or her. Furthermore, the ability to convince does not always mean that argument is good; in fact, even false argument may be accepted as well. Thus I disagree with the issue.