In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape you

The controversy of whether the collision of contrasting perspectives can lead to progress has established a long history in not only academic, but also politics and business. Some people argue that opposite views help to eliminate potential bias and thus promote progress, while others claim that it merely causes disturbance and hence retard development. This essay is going to argue that, to a large extent, discussion among people who have contrasting opinions is necessary for making progress. Because such discussions help the discovery of logical flaws, the avoidance of biasedness, and the representability of proposals.

Firstly, it is easier for people holding contrasting views to spot the flaws in the logic of theories and propositions. This is well-demonstrated by the development of war theories and international relations. Upon realists themselves, it seems plausible that nations, in order to pursue the sense of security, must expand their militaries, which triggers the arm competition. Paradoxically, arm competition, as the result of people feeling insecure, always becomes the origin of wars, and thus realists deduce that wars are inevitable. However, it is easy for liberals to spot the flaw of this derivation, which is lurking behind the assumption that nations always feel insecure as imagine others as rivals instead of camorades. The aforementioned dilemma is solvable via the establishment of international organisations, which proved to be a milestone of international relations. Therefore, as revealed by this example, many ostensible dilemma can be easily solved if people can think from different perspectives. Nevertheless, in particular situations, such paradoxes are not generated from logic flaws, but due to people having fundamentally opposite beliefs. With this respect, the privilege of discussions among competing views lies predominantly in the avoidance of biasedness, which leads to the next argument of this essay.

Secondly, being exposed under different perspectives helps to alleviate potential bias. Biasness is considered as ubiquitous when people trying to form statements and claims, and frequently its existence is hard to be aware of. Fortunately, this problem is be ameliorated by discussing with people holding contrasting views, so that a middle point (hopefully neutral but at least less bias) can be reached. A well-known example can be found when reviewing the development of modern statistical science. There are generally two opposite camps - Frequentist and Bayesian - concerning whether probabilities should be treated as objective or subjective. Both of those two perspectives contain some biased elements, in effect. Because the frequentist’s objectiveness requires the hypothetical infinitely many repeated sampling, while the Bayesian definition depends on capricious personal believes. Nevertheless, unremitting discussion and amendment forms the so called ‘modern mathematical statistics’, where statisticians are free to adopt either of those two views as tools depending on their specific needs, which dramatically

boosts the development of statistics as a discipline. Notwithstanding, there might be scenarios or stages when benigment discussion becomes inimical arguments, which considerably delays the pace of progress. This genuinely happened between frequentists and Bayesians during the 1980s, when, at extreme cases, Bayesian statisticians were persecuted persistently and even could not get any teaching positions. Nonetheless, that should only be considered as a developing odyssey, and history has shown that ultimate coherence could be realised, which leads to rudimental progress.

Finally, having the opportunity of weighing contrasting views also ensures that various population groups being represented, which is crucial when making decisions with practical influence, such as political policies and business strategies. The political structure in the Western world provides a good illustration of this. For instance, the Liberal and Republic parties represents the utilities of lower and middle class and higher class, respectively. Having both parties in the House and the Senate ensures that proposals benefiting one group at the cost of the other would be vetoed. Therefore, only in this way can the society progress as a whole. However, critics might have argued that the advantage of having multiple parties is overshadowed by the inefficiency it generates. Admittedly, there are circumstances when a single position is able to more efficiently allocate resources and achieving one certain goal immediately. Nevertheless, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the depression in North Korea both demonstrate that single perspective and principle is not sustainable. Thus, it seems plausible to argue that having discussions between multiple perspectives contributes to making long-term progress, even though at a little cost of efficiency.

To conclude, this essay has argued that discussions between people holding contracting perspectives contributes to making progress. Because these discussions make it easier for people to spot any flaws within their logic and to recognise the biases within their theories. Moreover, having competing views also ensures the representability within the process of decision making. Therefore, although there are certain circumstances, as have been discussed, when diversity in perspectives does not seem to contribute much or single view might even be preferred, it should be generally agreed that this diversity boosts progress.