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

The author claims that the best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint based on the reasoning that one can only discover the value of an idea by being forced to defend it against it's counterparts. I do not agree with the author as I believe that the claim and the supporting reason is fairly disputatious.

Firstly, the author claims that an argument is best evaulated on it's ability to convince the ones with an opposing viewpoint. Stated in this way, it can be inferred that the agrument is foolproof if all the people perceive it in the same way. However, this is purely hypothetical. Each and everyone have their own viewpoint and just as there are two sides to a coin, there are two sides to an argument. For instance, an affluent person would consider buying an expensive outfit because they think that it is the best outfit in the market. The argument is based on the assumption that more the cost, better the outfit. On the other hand, an average earning person would feel contented with much less expensive outfit, for they believe that it is not appropriate to lavish money on outfits. Both these people are right in their own way. When they are made argue against each other's selection of the outfit, none of them would actually be able to convince the other. This does not mean that both the arguments are flawed. It's only that they are being viewed differently and thus, open to debate. In such a case, one must respect each other's viewpoint without worrying about the plausibility of the argument, for an argument relies on logic and not how people perceive it.

Secondly, an opposing viewpoint can open new doors of innovative thinking thereby resulting in the betterment of both the parties involved. For example, during a math class, a teacher would generally solve a problem conventionally. However, if a student comes up with a new method that is apparently brisk and efficacious than the conventional one and if the teacher evaluates and accepts that method, the enitre class would benefit. In this way, embracing an opposing viewpoint can be beneficial.

Thirdly, the author states that you discover the true value of an idea when you forcibly defend it against your counterparts. As mentioned above, the true value and the plausibility of an idea cannot be assessed on the basis of how the other party perceives it. When you forcibly defend your idea against your opponents just to convince them, you are actually being illogical and wasting a lot of time and energy behind something that is not actually in your hands.

To conclude, the author's claim and the supporting reason does not sound compelling to me as it is very much open to discussion and thus, I decide to stand by my opinion that an argument depends on the underlying logic rather than it's perception by the people and that one must respect other people's views without forcing them into believing what one has to offer.