The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
The dichotomy risen by the author is best assayed when opponents compare their views in a rethorical way, but the litmus test of an argument can't be circomscribed to its ability to convince opposing viewpoints. While it is true that the expected outcome of arguments is often to convince people and it is essential in a country, within a family, and for the debate can be substantiated, to have contrasting positions, I believe that its ethos lies in enriching the debate, but not in proving to be true or in being believed in.
History has witnessed that any single view tends to benefit people having the political or economic muscle; whose significance is often distorted as there is no one to underline its loopholes. Arguments being only shared and defended amongst people whom are already in accordance with it, lack insight and mirror tyrannic states, judiciaries serving the mercenary interests. Additionally, harmful fallouts ensue, for the myopic debate between only the proponents of an idea would fuel a truth that is their perception, nay a vagary of their mind. Plato had thrown the light on this phenomenon by means of the Allegory of the Cave, where in, people who were chained to a wall had as unique truth their own shadows. Thus, people who convince each other of their factitious stances would be nothing more than an illusion.
In myriad scenarios, it is essential to note that a "my way or the highway approach" works little. The field of science, for instance, have its genesis within the confluence of past achievements and beliefs, and incipient techniques. The activists, politicians or speakers that were and are lauded are the ones who have been standing for an ideal in front of their supporters as well as their critics. However, the purpose of engaging in a debate with opposing viewpoints is to consolidate one's beliefs with the weakness of the counter arguments, but also at the risk, that our own ideals might turn to be false. It is therefore true that the best test of an argument would be for it to be compared to opposing viewpoints, but for the debate, the individuals and the nation, the benefits flowing from the process far outweigh the parochial scope of being right.
Only if in a conversation all parties are keenly ready to listen to each other, will an argument finds merits in his opponent's eyes. In this regard, the statement presents a limit embodied by the adage "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink." While it is true that for most people, the heyday for an argument would be to be endorsed by his detractors, it is imponderable to ascertain its value contingently upon one who isn't ready to acknowledge it. The human mind's tendency of not being honest, but dogmatic, despite the cognizance of having been outsmarted or spellbound, often prevents arguments from being truly appreciated.
I strongly believe that the content prevails over the style, but as highlighted by the dialectics peculiar to politicians, for instance, the reasoning put forth often convinces people despite a lack of profundity. Machiavelli illustrated through the Prince that an argument was made to be malleable, especially when it comes to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint or whom is in a struggle of class. This process is a niche field of study in itself, calling into question the idea that the ultimate test of an argument is its ability to convince the dissenting opinion. One can't ignore that arguments' weight is, moreover, strengthens by the persona embodying it, and the speaker sometimes is more important than the idea itself. Thus, an argument being personified or used against its own goal might be deprived of its essence, negating the author's view.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...way, but the litmus test of an argument cant be circomscribed to its ability to conv...
^^^^
Line 5, column 51, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...scenarios, it is essential to note that a 'my way or the highway approach&ap...
^
Line 5, column 501, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...h opposing viewpoints is to consolidate ones beliefs with the weakness of the counte...
^^^^
Line 7, column 248, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...;You can lead a horse to water, but you cant force it to drink.' While it is tr...
^^^^
Line 7, column 455, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ain its value contingently upon one who isnt ready to acknowledge it. The human mind...
^^^^
Line 7, column 495, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'minds'' or 'mind's'?
Suggestion: minds'; mind's
...isnt ready to acknowledge it. The human minds tendency of not being honest, but dogma...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 582, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...to convince the dissenting opinion. One cant ignore that arguments weight is, moreov...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for instance, as well as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 43.0 19.5258426966 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 11.3162921348 203% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 53.0 33.0505617978 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 84.0 58.6224719101 143% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3129.0 2235.4752809 140% => OK
No of words: 631.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9587955626 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01195704033 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81584953737 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 317.0 215.323595506 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.502377179081 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 975.6 704.065955056 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.7820697245 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.45 118.986275619 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.55 23.4991977007 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.36657032044 0.243740707755 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115054436524 0.0831039109588 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106540483036 0.0758088955206 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225370348459 0.150359130593 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108121815049 0.0667264976115 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.1392134831 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 171.0 100.480337079 170% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.8971910112 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.