Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
Without controversial discussions, there would not be a chance for new ideas to be formed, beliefs to be modified, or even decisions to be made. It is highly doubtful that any two human beings in history have shared identical beliefs in every topic. If this fact rendered any discussions meaningless, then humanity would not be anywhere close to where we are today. Fundamentally challenging a person's core beliefs can only be achieved by first understanding. One must strive to understand the point of view of those they wish to persuade. Only then, does the person being challenged consider allowing their very foundation to be altered.
At the most basic level, individuals must work interdependently with others at the level of all relationships; whether marriages, friendships, or business partnerships. All partners surely quarrel, even occasionally with truculent discussions. They may discuss issues that are controversial in their own relationship but seem benign to the outside world. Having children, owning pets, and allocating finances are all exemplars of common arguments within relationships. How would any marriage exist if not for discussion of these topics? Ignorance is only bliss to an extent and, eventually, people must discuss the topics which bother them in order to live a happier life. Even if the only change they have to their core beliefs is understanding the other person's point of view, this creates a better understanding and improves the relationship between two people.
The argument that communication, especially difficult communication, is imperative, can further be bolstered by the topic of inventions and technology. A business relationship is just that: a relationship. One which requires work, communication and understanding. Without Wozniack, Jobs' name and face wouldn't be nearly as recognizable. Anyone with any insight into Apple knows that Steve Jobs did not engender the company on his own. This required the two founders to have a relationship, no matter how turbulent, in order to be successful. This can only be performed by discussing the difficult topics and coming to a mutual understanding regarding their conclusions. Even if two business partners are not entirely espoused, the benefits reaped by both working together are undeniable.
Wars, ephemeral and seemingly unending ones alike, have been fought between men that have refused to listen to one another. Death, starvation, and economic ruin are among the horrid consequences created by refusing to understand, to change one's beliefs. So many lives have been saved by world leaders coming together, having a difficult discussion, and working together towards a beneficial outcome for both. This is the way to peace and understanding. This has been demonstrated by many individuals throughout history. Nelson Mandela is a wonderful and sanguine example of avoiding war and despair through understanding and allowing his core beliefs to be challenged, as well as challenging the core beliefs of others.
The questioning of core beliefs is undoubtedly a difficult, although necessary, topic to discuss. These uncomfortable and challenging conversations are imperative not only between individuals but between business empires, countries, and the world as a whole in order to preserve our integrity as human beings.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... change they have to their core beliefs is understanding the other persons point of view, this c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 302, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...g. Without Wozniack, Jobs name and face wouldnt be nearly as recognizable. Anyone with ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 241, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ed by refusing to understand, to change ones beliefs. So many lives have been saved ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, regarding, so, then, well, as to, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2824.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 513.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50487329435 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75914943092 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22692580784 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 284.0 215.323595506 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553606237817 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 877.5 704.065955056 125% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.7185017573 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.3793103448 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6896551724 23.4991977007 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.24137931034 5.21951772744 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185671011658 0.243740707755 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0479567263735 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0514900010963 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104149550862 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514425290945 0.0667264976115 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.1392134831 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 100.480337079 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.