Whether valuing one’s own ideas requires challenging them against the views of others is a contested position. This is problematic when we seek to choose the proper action, especially when it comes to religious beliefs and political ideals. It seems though that convincing those who have an alternative perspective on a specific topic will ultimately be what allows us to recognize the value of our own stance.
Some argue that the values of our ideas are realized without being discussed with those holding a different point of view. The proponents of this position claim that as long as we are convinced of our views, then there will be no need to challenge them by considering the ideas of others. For example, let us consider religious beliefs. One may argue that it will be unnecessary to establish any exchange of ideas between different religions, as such exchange will have no effect at all. Religious arguments are presented in the first place to be upheld by faith and not reason. Accordingly, such ideas should not be contested and contrasted with others, as that will only lead to religious tension. Religious tension in the first place is the outcome of dominant religious groups trying to force their views on others who hold different beliefs.
Nevertheless, it seems it is still necessary to challenge our positions against the critical arguments especially of those who have an opposing view. The main force of this argument stems from the claim made by John Stuart Mill of the fallibility of our ideas. This view has also been advocated by a number of contemporary philosophers, especially Jurgen Habermas. The recognition that our arguments are fallible will urge us to continuously consider alternatives while contesting our beliefs against those of others. In the case of international terrorism for instance, we do believe that considering the view of others is required. The destruction of the twin towers in New York possibly would not have occurred if there had been any dialogue between the two contesting parties. The notion of utilizing terrorism for arriving at particular political goals would be subjected to thorough criticism. Consequently, those who appeal to terrorism as a legitimate mean to arriving at ends will in the least recognize the fallibility of their position beforehand. This however can only be done through contesting it against those who hold a different view and not against those who are already convinced of the legitimacy of terrorism.
Ultimately, it seems that challenging our views against contrasting perspectives does appear to be the best way to test the soundness of an idea. This stems primarily for our recognition of the fallibility of our ideas. Therefore, we should always consider any argument we hold to be contestable. This will prompt us to discuss our ideas against people who hold opposing views first and foremost in order to see whether our beliefs are right or not.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Whether valuing one’s own ideas requires...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” 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.
Whether valuing one’s own ideas requires challe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cognize the value of our own stance. Some argue that the values of our ideas ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n others who hold different beliefs. Nevertheless, it seems it is still neces...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ced of the legitimacy of terrorism. Ultimately, it seems that challenging ou...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, consequently, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 33.0505617978 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2474.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 483.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12215320911 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88896373731 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463768115942 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 771.3 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.3651776744 60.3974514979 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 107.565217391 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.60869565217 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247156792127 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0783956961673 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729343084929 0.0758088955206 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168281146175 0.150359130593 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0244545332384 0.0667264976115 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => 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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.