Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
The issue of whether discussing the controversial topics with those with contrasting views has engendered controversy and can be divided into two schools of thought. On the one hand, staunch defenders support that this suggests a prolific method to make some people less intractable as they will be affected by different views. On the other hand, opponents contend that this is totally useless. Were I in such an ambiguous position whether to agree or disagree, I would support the latter idea, even though the former one could have some positive attributes.
First and foremost, controversial views by nature incite contrasting views to occur. As a result, it would be characterized extremelly difficult for such topics to be found accepted by both parts. Moreover, most of the people in this category tend to be totally self-assured and they support with fervor their ideas and temper. For example, politics usually constitute a controversial view with sound oponents of every different side. Those who support liberal views are in contrast with those who have a strong wit for conservatism. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to discuss such a concept with politics with these two different parts, because only a few could be positive to change their mind even for the short period that the discussion takes happens.
In addition, individuals by nature think that when they possess an idea, they have all the right with them and they do not accept that something could undermine their view. Consequently, the nature of controversial topics promotes the ambiguity of an issue and people practice fiercely their perseverance on their standing. For instance, environmental protection and fossil fuels constitute a controversial topic that cites the two different parts of this struggle. Businessmen support that fossil fuels do not threaten the climate and the phenomenon of global warming, since they have implemented all the latest technology applications in their industries. On the contrary, environmentalists quote that the burning of fussil fuels increases the carbon dioxide of the etmosphere and as a result augmentes the global warming of the planet.
According to the other school of thought, discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views would in some ways produce advantages. Undoubtedly, there are people with contrasting views that also posses a sort of elegance and they could easily sit and discuss some important issues with their counterparts. It is clearly illustrated in the case of the United States of America and Russia where during the Cold War, the discussed some concepts about the production of nuclear weapons. However, these cases always present a minority and they should not be generalized.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly believe that controversial topics by nature inhibit any chances of positive interaction and dialogue between individuals. People must be more educated and open-minded if it is to overcome these obstacles. In that case we could have all the fundamentals for a fair and impartial society that benefits everyone.
- The study of history has value only to the extend that is relevant to our daily lives 70
- The perceived greatness of any political leader has more to do with challenges faced by that leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities. 79
- The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbag 66
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could 79
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, sort of, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2625.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 485.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41237113402 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99666162077 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513402061856 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 808.2 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3194819277 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.318181818 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0454545455 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.81818181818 5.21951772744 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.373219335648 0.243740707755 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107024373371 0.0831039109588 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100954733087 0.0758088955206 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205152679193 0.150359130593 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0965246231981 0.0667264976115 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 100.480337079 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.