There are various approaches when it comes to discussing any particular subject. The issue with subjective tasks is that finding dissension is not rare. Differing individuals have seemingly disparate views of the same matter of discussion, taking numerous techniques to reason their claim, and more importantly quite different intentions. It has to be conceded undoubtedly that viewing scrutinizing an argument leads to a better understanding of the argument itself, the underpinnings in which it rests and also limitations present inherently. A whole lot of assumptions and flaws that were implicit or latent previously come to notice after heedful inquisition of the claim offered.
Although, considering the claim that the supreme way to test an argument is by convincing the opposing party seems pretty reasonable, it might not be embodied in the real world. One simple answer is because of chauvinists. It is admirable to support one's belief systems, defending it from attacks from critiques and various others. But being a blind devotee to any ideology in particular has its flaws, that is rejecting the shortcomings of your cherished beliefs. The words of formidable personality Mark Twain resound this idea: "It is difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person, but impossible against a fool". Consider examples from modern politics: when the ruling party tries new schemes that were previously unthought of, and succeeds in bringing some changes, instead of appreciating or even extending a lukewarm symbol of thanks, the opposition party starts baying with lucid comments. This does suggest that it is not always feasible to convince
an opposing party taking part in a dialogue.
Granted that it might be inconceivable to persuade everyone about your arguments, we do not contend that one should not give it a serious try. For example, when preparing for a college presentation about a course lecture to the entire class and professors, running a dry presentation of the exact debate with a group of pals is really beneficial. Not only does it preps us for the actual presentation, but more importantly, it helps us to realize
the real strength and weaknesses of our claims. The human nature lends more easily to defend one's principles, and refute others than vice-versa. Thus, in attempting to convince the opposition, we also try to think of numerous safe-grounds and avenues where our argument stays intact, analyzing it from various angles, and consequently, appropriating suitable modifications to strengthen the same. Just as the previous exemplification suggested, the idea of startups trying to undergo strict inquisitions with angel-investors about the robustness of the product they are pitching serves a similar
role. When selling your idea, you have to defend it from all possible modes of logical, verbal and hypothetical attacks, and if you succeed in doing so, it is indeed a valid argument, at least for the sake of the undergoing debate with the interlocutor.
In sum, the idea that making the opponent's views align with your own might be an admirable endeavor, it is not always pragmatic to do so. There are cases where the practicality of the situation also has to be taken into consideration. Although, there are a bunch of pros in battling the cutting arguments, all of which serve either to augment our understanding of the subject of the matter, or bolster the presented argument, or both.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 547, Rule ID: WHOLE_LOT[1]
Message: Use simply 'lot'.
Suggestion: lot
... also limitations present inherently. A whole lot of assumptions and flaws that were impl...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 365, Rule ID: DOES_NP_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'prep'?
Suggestion: prep
... is really beneficial. Not only does it preps us for the actual presentation, but mor...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 365, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'prep'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: prep
... is really beneficial. Not only does it preps us for the actual presentation, but mor...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 94, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...uman nature lends more easily to defend ones principles, and refute others than vice...
^^^^
Line 10, column 258, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'bunches'?
Suggestion: bunches
...to consideration. Although, there are a bunch of pros in battling the cutting argumen...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, if, really, so, then, thus, as to, at least, for example, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2906.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 552.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26449275362 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84713113593 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05870071656 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 312.0 215.323595506 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565217391304 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 897.3 704.065955056 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => 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: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.0445068633 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.090909091 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0909090909 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36363636364 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.297267744001 0.243740707755 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.071872095528 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655741484508 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128261294716 0.150359130593 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0591151034162 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.57 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 164.0 100.480337079 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.