In any situation progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view

In a modern society where people have freedom of speech, it is common that people express different perspectives on the same matter. Sometimes, the discussion involving two disparate viewpoints can spark meaningful debate and thus lead to progress. On the other hand, it is not uncommon that progress is stalled due to unresolvable deadlock caused by contrasting viewpoints. The statement of the prompt suggests that it is important to ensure contrasting viewpoints in discussion under any situation, as progress necessitates it. In my opinion, I most agree with this position. However, I also concede that in some extreme cases, the impasses caused by contrasting viewpoints preclude any possibility of progress.

First of all, discussions with people who have disparate viewpoints can greatly contribute to finding weaknesses or flaws existing on both sides. Take the American presidential, for instance. In an election year, the candidates represented by both parties, Republican and Democrat, are required to attend debates broadcasted nationally by media. Through discussion on issues ranging from the national defense budget to educational reforms, the candidates with contrasting viewpoints can expose false arguments the other side proposes, and thus both sides can strengthen their policies and make improvements after the debate. The general public can also use the opportunity to find which side is more in accordance with their ideologies. Similarly, at the realm of mathematics, it is common that two contrasting views can lead to finding mistakes and make theorem more complete. For instance, the central limit theorem is the product of compromise born out of the debate between two major schools in statistics. The ongoing discussion led to a more complete proof that accommodate all discrepancites.

Second of all, to prevent failure, it is not uncommon that discussion including disparate viewpoints is not only encouraged but also created. For example, at the realm of business, when a new product is ready to launch and make inroads into the market, it has to withstand a series of test, including harsh questions that might be asked on product presentation. As a result, companies often create a team with people having contrasting views to ask hard questions before the presentation so that the host can be better prepared.

However, in some extreme cases, a prolonged discussion that contains two disparate opinions tend to lead to impasse and halt progress. For instance, in most of the democratic countries, when a minority party can not outstrip the majority side in the voting process of passing a law, the minority side often employed a tactic called filibustering – a method to prevent a draft to move into next phase by continued expressing opinions on the podium. The process of filibustering does not encourage dialogue between both sides to come to an agreement, nor does it make good on legislator mission of executing the will of the people. Additionally, it invites the other side to utilize the same tactic of filibustering when it becomes the minority one, which undermine values of democracy.

In conclusion. discusison involving two contrasting sides often leads to both sides making their arguments more complete. It also prevents potential failure in the future.