Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
Controversial topics have never been easily solved, there are many contrasting views which makes it more cumbersome for analyses of the topic and it inadvertantly becomes more compound. Many believe that every person should question to the controversy if it is anyhow related to their well-being. But sometimes, many people retract their views once they are questioned about their views and beliefs in order to escape from where they could have proven wrong. Such an act makes the controversy to get more heated and nearly impossible to reach to a solution. They suddenly change their beliefs at any given point of time. The above prompt argues that few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs. I strongly agree with the author that few people definetely makes a controversy more complex by their fickle attitude towards the topics.
One can take the example of politics in daily life. Many issues are made it to the level where one could have solved the matter before reaching to its peak. When one person tries to mitigate any issue the opposition organization because of the enmity towards the organization makes it more complex by their contrasting views. At one point the issue becomes so unsolvable that the issue is flooded with many different theories. It also happens that once the organization is started to question they change their views in order to not get into the negative impression of people and in turn makes the controversial topic a still under dispute. Analysing the above example, i agree that if many different contrasting views are put forward then it can only increase the heat of the dispute.
After british left India, they had completely destroyed the politics of the country and had also initiated a fire of anger between the two religion i.e Hindus and Muslims. The matter had so taken the roots that Hindu people started to hate Muslims and vice versa. Many attempts where made to mitigate the problems but due to contrasting views the land had to be divided into two parts where one was given to Muslims and one was for Hindus. Because people couldn't reach to a solution there was division of land which was worst decision ever taken by any country in history. one could have saved the division of land if such contrasting views could have been prevented
Of course, many still believe that contrasting views should be put forward because one cannot just agree with what is under developing. But these contrasting views has never led to any issues reach any successful decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...solvable that the issue is flooded with many different theories. It also happens that once the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 671, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...r dispute. Analysing the above example, i agree that if many different contrastin...
^
Line 3, column 687, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...sing the above example, i agree that if many different contrasting views are put forward then ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” 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.
...iven to Muslims and one was for Hindus. Because people couldnt reach to a solution ther...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 456, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... and one was for Hindus. Because people couldnt reach to a solution there was division ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 517, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'was the worst'.
Suggestion: was the worst
...lution there was division of land which was worst decision ever taken by any country in h...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 574, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: One
...n ever taken by any country in history. one could have saved the division of land i...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, still, then, well, as for, of course
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2118.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 429.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93706293706 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55107846309 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48137798465 2.79657885939 89% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 215.323595506 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.452214452214 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 676.8 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5769230347 60.3974514979 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.473684211 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5789473684 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.89473684211 5.21951772744 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336015267058 0.243740707755 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105822608801 0.0831039109588 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103404133195 0.0758088955206 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20107083403 0.150359130593 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.139190235353 0.0667264976115 209% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 100.480337079 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.