The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea

I mostly agree with the idea that the best test of an argument is its ability to convince who has opposite point of view.

In such personalized, diverse society where each individuals opinions are multi-faceted, an argument can be partially agreed to some while disagreed to others. Indeed, it is very hard for an argument to be perfectly, pristinely flawless. Some other argues might be better sound, and maybe these argues can be mingled with yours and lead to a better solution. Yet, if you propose an argument and want to validate its soundness, you have to check it with those who are on the very opposite point of view. Because, in order to change that point of view, it needs to be altered and swayed the most—literally it is “opposite”.

People can witness and analyze arguments on many kinds of situations; it can be a newspaper editorial, debates on TV, or even in real life where there are any type of collisions between individuals or groups. However, the place I think which is the most obvious and significant is the court. Everyday in court, there are fights verbally with the help of logical thinking. Lawyers trying to defend defendants and prosecutors trying to attack them fight each other for the same goal, which is to convince judges. In such cases, each present proofs, evidences either substantial or not, and refute each others’ logic with their own logic. Although this process is focused on convincing the judges(neutral, 3rd-party) rather than the opposite side, this is where argument is tested most thoroughly and meticulously. How would one respond if the other side’s argument does not hold water?

Some others can say that there are other ways of testing an argument. For example, one would need to try and persuade the majority of neutral people rather than minor opposite-side group. Yet, turning the opposite side will be probably much harder than instilling claims to neutrals. Indeed, the ability to persuade opposite side encapsulates peoples in between. Furthermore, let alone viewing the world as “black-and-white”, “dichotomically” being dangerous, people are actually more polarized than being such a diverse society. During presidential election periods, usually the two opposing party’s candidates compete each other and their manifestos meet against each other. For example, one party might suggest to raise taxes of the rich while the other might disagree on that issue. Candidates each come up with their viewpoint and logic on the issue and try to refute each other as well. Citizens will watch it and give votes to the candidate who has a better, sound, arguments. Each others arguments’ power and prowess can be eventually figured out by them trying to weaken their opposite’s viewpoint and convince their supporters. If this ability is weak can the candidate win the election by defeating the other opposite side of candidate?

By the abovementioned examples of court and electoral debates where argument needs to be verified and inspected in the most harsh standards, and each covering the process of convincing the opposing sides, I think it is safe to say the excerpt be acceptable.