The best test of an argument is the argument's 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 i

The Glorious tradition of critical thinking started from Ancient Greek when many philosophers spread their thoughts through argument with youngsters in order to revise their extreme opinions and immature judgment of things. There has been a long-time contest about the standard of a qualified argument. Generally, it seems convincing that defending for an idea against the doubts and objections deepen one's approval of it. Yet occasionally alternative test could have a better effect.

On one side, individuals approval of one idea tend to stand on the same side and form an ally, which impedes them from comprehending this idea from an overall perspective. Whereas, when challenged by viewpoints on the other side, incentives help them more efficiently discover valuable aspects they failed to notice before. For instance, Socrates form his philosophy and constantly prove its validity in practice during the process of argument with young people in Athens. Contrarily, without incentives, one be tired of searching for defending in diverse aspects and end up with a shallow understanding of knowledges and thoughts, which might explain the necessity of establishing the debate course in universities.

On the other side, no idea is impeccable. When concerning merely about the advantages of one idea, individuals could easily go to extreme and intoxicated in the good characteristics he discovered. Whereas, defending against converse views serves as a perfect reminder for the drawbacks of the idea and only in this way can one thoroughly scrutinize the idea and continuously revise its imperfection and promote its cogency. The Congress serves as a platform for the United States government to amend the acts by councillors debating on proposals and revising the inappropriate parts. Accordingly, defending for one idea is a considerable way to improve it through rediscovering the unnoticeable flaws.

Admittedly, defending for one idea against opposing viewpoint is an excellent method to test and enhance one’s understanding of it. It appears arbitrary to regard it as the only appropriate way to judge an argument. The alternatives, in some cases, could function even better. For example, by displaying one idea through a speech or presentation, individuals gain the opportunity to go through the whole picture and express it systematically. In this process, the authenticity of argument is explicitly revealed as well.

Conclusively, defending for an idea against doubts and disapprovals can effectively examine and elevate one’s comprehension of it. The overestimating of it, however, seems irrational since the alternative methods could achieve the same effect.