Whether valuing one’s own ideas requires challenging them against the views of
others is a contested position. This is problematic when we seek to choose the proper
action, especially when it comes to religious beliefs and political ideals. It seems
though that convincing those who have an alternative perspective on a specific topic
will ultimately be what allows us to recognize the value of our own stance.
Some argue that the values of our ideas are realized without being discussed with
those holding a different point of view. The proponents of this position claim that as
long as we are convinced of our views, then there will be no need to challenge them
by considering the ideas of others. For example, let us consider religious beliefs. One
may argue that it will be unnecessary to establish any exchange of ideas between
different religions, as such exchange will have no effect at all. Religious arguments are
presented in the first place to be upheld by faith and not reason. Accordingly, such
ideas should not be contested and contrasted with others, as that will only lead to
religious tension. Religious tension in the first place is the outcome of dominant
religious groups trying to force their views on others who hold different beliefs.
Nevertheless, it seems it is still necessary to challenge our positions against the critical
arguments especially of those who have an opposing view. The main force of this
argument stems from the claim made by John Stuart Mill of the fallibility of our ideas. This
view has also been advocated by a number of contemporary philosophers, especially
Jurgen Habermas. The recognition that our arguments are fallible will urge us to
continuously consider alternatives while contesting our beliefs against those of others. In
the case of international terrorism, for instance, we do believe that considering the view
of others is required. The destruction of the twin towers in New York possibly would not
have occurred if there had been any dialogue between the two contesting parties. The
notion of utilizing terrorism for arriving at particular political goals would be subjected to
thorough criticism. Consequently, those who appeal to terrorism as a legitimate mean to
arriving at ends will in the least recognize the fallibility of their position beforehand. This
however can only be done through contesting it against those who hold a different view
and not against those who are already convinced of the legitimacy of terrorism.
Ultimately, it seems that challenging our views against contrasting perspectives
does appear to be the best way to test the soundness of an idea. This stems primarily
for our recognition of the fallibility of our ideas. Therefore, we should always consider
any argument we hold to be contestable. This will prompt us to discuss our ideas
against people who hold opposing views first and foremost in order to see whether
our beliefs are right or not.
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones 58
- Claim Though often considered an objective pursuit learning about the historical past requires creativity Reason Because we can never know the past directly we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts documents and artifacts W 78
- Claim The best test of an argument is its 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 idea Write a respo 50
- Claim Though often considered an objective pursuit learning about the historical past requires creativity Reason Because we can never know the past directly we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts documents and artifacts W 85
- Claim Though often considered an objective pursuit learning about the historical past requires creativity Reason Because we can never know the past directly we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts documents and artifacts W 22
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Whether valuing one’s own ideas requires...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
Whether valuing one’s own ideas requires challe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cognize the value of our own stance. Some argue that the values of our ideas ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 18, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n others who hold different beliefs. Nevertheless, it seems it is still neces...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 29, column 96, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ility of their position beforehand. This however can only be done through contest...
^^^
Line 33, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nced of the legitimacy of terrorism. Ultimately, it seems that challenging ou...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, consequently, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 33.0505617978 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2535.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 483.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24844720497 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89212241923 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465838509317 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 771.3 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.6848386373 60.3974514979 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 110.217391304 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.60869565217 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 35.0 4.97078651685 704% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.247387818102 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0783956961673 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729343084929 0.0758088955206 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0643377099338 0.150359130593 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0641245563053 0.0667264976115 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.