Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
Debates and discussions on controversial topics have served to the benefit of mankind, not only through political progression but also scientific innovations and our fundamental knowledge of the universe.
The claim of "few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs." is fundamentally flawed. It is due to the constant debates, arguments and at times, even bloodshed based on the opposing ideology has improved human rights and allowed many countries, especially the United States of America, to be as prosperous as they are today. For example, slavery was thought to be a common practice back when America was first founded. During the reign of President Abraham Lincoln and his work for abolishing slavery, human rights were able to see the light of day. If people's core believes can rarely be changed, we might not be able to make as much human rights progress as we have in the past few centuries.
Many scientific breakthroughs have also benefitted humanity and increased our knowledge of the universe. One such breakthrough was the discovery that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth but vice versa. The concept that the Sun revolved around the Earth used to be widely known until Galileo claimed that it was the opposite. It became a highly controversial topic that led to Galileo's house arrest for supporting such a controversial statement. However, if we did not have these debates and discussions, we may not have made the scientific progress that we have taken for granted today.
Indeed, many people do not like being questioned on their core beliefs and to admit that the beliefs that we have built our lives upon may be untrue will be very damaging to our ego. Even now in the United States, we can see the contrasting and unchanging beliefs of liberals and conservatives and some states have even solidified their positions as red states and blue states. However, this does not mean that constant debates are not useful. Maybe even what we think today as an undeniable truth can be overturned in the future, continuing our progress as a nation and as a species.
Now, global warming is considered a controversial topic and we are still having intense discussions and debates on what we can do today. These debates have already shown their result by many companies halting their provision of plastic straws, especially in the fast-food industry. McDonald's in Indonesia has stopped providing plastic straws country-wide to promote the reduction of global warming, showing that these debates have successfully changed a nation's perspective and caused a positive impact on the environment.
"Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs." definitely holds untrue as seen from our past to our present and hopefully our future.
- Paleo diets, in which one eats how early hominids (human ancestors) did, are becoming increasingly popular. Proponents claim our bodies evolved to eat these types of food, especially bone broth, a soup made by cooking animal bones for several hours. They 77
- Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs. 83
- Science and technology will one day be able to solve all of society’s problems. 58
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader, it is not as important as a leader’s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 455, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...ese debates have successfully changed a nations perspective and caused a positive impac...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, still, even so, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2457.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 471.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21656050955 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88233275371 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513800424628 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 765.0 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6681451924 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.315789474 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7894736842 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52631578947 5.21951772744 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30082763024 0.243740707755 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868908424555 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.152651918012 0.0758088955206 201% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181069221803 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.196770996054 0.0667264976115 295% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 100.480337079 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.