Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

The author states that if you are going to defend an idea and win an argument, use the best test of that which is practicing the opposite view point and reasons that only in this way someone can really discover the value of that idea. I generally disagree with that.

I don’t think using the opposite viewpoint could always be the best way. Maybe the easiest way but not the best. Actually I believe that it is only one simple way between many ways that you can use and I think its use depends on the field of subject. In the other hand, I think winning an argument depends on many criteria such as your audience, the idea you’re defending and your ability of convincing.

What If your audience is not reasonable, not expert and even a dogmatic person? how can you be sure you are not wasting time on a unidirectional and ineffective argument? If the idea is a very abstract and subjective one like freedom no one could deny it, but what if it’s not? And in what follows, what if you are not convincible as you think?

In sum, I think an argument’s ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint is only one test of it and considering the characteristics of your argument, your audience and your ability of convincing, your better always consider other ways as well.