The best test of an argument is the argument's ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.Write 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 take.

Perhaps, many of us adhere to the belief that the best test on an argument is its ability to convince a person with an opposing point of view. Although this idea has some merits, may we assert that it is completely true? As far as I am concerned the answer on this question is "no". The reasons of my stance will be discussed in details below.

To begin with, the claim is tempting owing to the fact that intuitively we know that if an argument is strong, it will likely persuade an opponent. By contrast, if the argument has flaws, they will be found and displayed by the other side. In fact, this principle is widely used in science. For example, one of the greatest scientists of our time, in my opinion, Albert Einstein initially made a mistake in his calculations, consequently, the first version of the theory presented to public was refuted by the scientific society. The great scientists rethought his theory and bettered it. The novel version which is known as the special theory of relativity was flawless and therefore it was accepted by public. This example illustrates that the ability of an argument to convince others is indeed a decent indicator of the quality of the argument. But may we aver that it is the best way to verify an argument?

Unfortunately, the answer on this question is "no" because sometimes even the strongest argument cannot persuade people who are unwilling to cast doubt on their beliefs. Probably, the best instance of this situation is the conflict between evolutionists and creationists. Although, Darwinian theory has a plethora of scientific evidence from fossil remainders of ancient creatures to researches of our genome, creationists, who perceive the story which is described in Bible as the truth, refuse to accept the theory of evolution. Creationists blindly dismiss all available evidence as counterfeits which were created by Devil or God to check their faith. From this illustration we may draw a conclusion that quality of an argument not always reflects in its ability to convince.

Furthermore, the ability of an argument to persuade does not guarantee the rightness of the argument because occasionally an argument which was accepted may be mistaken. Probably, the saddest example may be found in our justice system when an innocent person may be convicted to punishment, even death penalty, because of mistake. For instance, recently in state Alabama a black person was exonerated because of the results of an DNA test which have proved that the person did not rape the victim. Unfortunately, the argument which was presented by prosecutor twenty years ago was strong enough to convince the jury. In other words, the ability of an argument to convince may not mirror its credibility and quality.

In conclusion, although in many cases the ability of an argument to convince a person with opposite prospect may test the quality of an argument, the usage of this argument’s ability for verification is limited because if an opponent is unwilling to cast doubt on one’s beliefs even the strongest argument may not persuade the one. Furthermore, a persuasive argument may be mistaken as well. Therefore, I disagree with the issue.