Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
Speaking about controversial positions on topics with those who may disagree can be difficult. At times, what we see as logical conclusions are not shared or reflected in another's perspective. As a result, disagreement can quicky turn from different interpretations of events into diametrically opposed worldviews. As a response to disagreement, people tend to distance themselvs from those who disagree. However, I must disagree with the notion that one should refrain from dialogue due to disagreement, even in cases in which the other party is unwilling to change their mind. Avoidance of awkward conversations can cause false senses of truth, can stunt one's ability to communicate with the great variety of personalities in the world, and is, overall, unproductive for society.
Fundamentally, disagreements emerge from different perspectives on life's events. One person may see certain challenges in life as goals waiting to be accomplished, while another may see them as unjust social constructions that need to be rectified. From such different perspectives, we create similarly different solutions. However, the common thread is the desire to be correct. In defending one's own position -- whether that be in politics, society, or religion -- a person is reinforcing to him/herself an internal notion of being correct. However, one must not take it too far and mistake criticism for denunciation. If one is to truly pursue correctness, one must be open to the idea of being incorrect. In this sense, discussing controversial opinions opens one up to the possibility of being incorrect and subsequently correcting oneself. In engaging in conversations with contrasting views, we avoid the tendency to fall into echo chambers, where one can easily conflate repeated opinion as unyielding truth.
Though it may be more courteous, at least in certain situations, to avoid controversial topics, avoidance has a negative effect on one's overall social standing. While it may not be the only type of conversation in the word, controversial topics are common enough that one can reasonably expect it to pop up in casual conversation. Repeated refrain from engaging in such conversations not only leads one to limit the scope of topics available for engagement, it also stunts one's communicative growth. One should learn to express one's ideas without fear of reprisal from contrasting ideas. It is a skill that eed to be cultivated and it can only be done by practice, however awkward it may intially be.
If we can assume the purpose of conversation to be the connection of ideas between individuals, we cannot allow communication to be generally limited by fears of disagreement. Conflicts and contrasting persepctives are a natural part of society. To avoid controversial conversations is to placate others at the cost of one's own the expression. If one learns to engage productively, one can learn to avoid awkwardness while preserving one's voice.
- Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs. 66
- 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 59
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter collegeWrite a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you ta 66
- Those who see their ideas through, regardless of doubts or criticism others may express, are the ones who tend to leave a lasting legacy. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 658, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
... cause false senses of truth, can stunt ones ability to communicate with the great v...
^^^^
Line 9, column 110, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...void controversial topics, avoidance has a negative effect on ones overall social...
^^
Line 13, column 435, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...n to avoid awkwardness while preserving ones voice.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, similarly, so, while, at least, speaking about, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2497.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 465.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36989247312 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3045285359 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535483870968 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 791.1 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.4685954232 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.041666667 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.375 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45833333333 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0930549365709 0.243740707755 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.032512153402 0.0831039109588 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.049405511335 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0685323453282 0.150359130593 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0618124182706 0.0667264976115 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.