Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
Write a response to the prompt in which you discuss whether or not you agree or disagree. Be certain to fully develop your position and carefully consider ways in which your position could be challenged.
We live in modern society or a global world, where everyone is connected and everyone has their say about certain events or topics. I do agree that some people might have a contrasting viewpoint on a particular topic, but some would speak in a support of the topic. In the argument above, the author suggests to exclude the contrasting viewpoint from the discussion of controversial topics. In my belief, just only because some people have the paradoxical view, excluding them from the conversion is not a good idea. Here are the two pints that can support my argument.
Firstly, I believe having different viewpoints on a table would help us to analyse the situation better. It would help us to reach on the better conclusion as we can discuss the topic from every possible view. For Instance, if a scientist creates a new development in a particular field and claims that it will provide a solution to a long age problem persisting in society. If no one comes in the front share his opinion or to criticize the findings. It might be used around the world without knowing it’s benefits and lacks. If some other scientists do tell about where it is wanting or it’s other cons as well, that might help the creator to develop an improved version and help the society to know where it can or can not be used.
Secondly, nowadays, if we take a look around ourselves, will find that people are a bit more furious in nature or have a less tolerating limit which eventually causes a protest to grow. Keeping the furious nature of the people in mind, we can’t afford to neglect the contrasting audience from the conversation. If I take a particular example of India, where the government as recently changed the citizenship policy of the country. Many Muslims and minority castes believe that they are not included in a new policy of the government or they might get excluded from India, which is not the case. In the starting, they tried to put their arguments in front of the government, but they felt they were not being heard they started a protest all around the country.
I do agree with a point that sometimes people do come up with a really absurd line of reasoning and sometimes it is also important to not to hear such claims for the better working of the institution.
After taking a brief look into the statements that counter the argument which has been put forward by the author, I believe there is no harm in considering the contrasting point of views on the controversial topics. Sometime it would help to reach on the better conclusion and sometimes it would help us to mitigate the protest in a country or a city as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 301, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests excluding'.
Suggestion: suggests excluding
...opic. In the argument above, the author suggests to exclude the contrasting viewpoint from the disc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 576, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...other scientists do tell about where it is wanting or it’s other cons as well, that might ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 590, Rule ID: ITS_JJ_NNSNN[27]
Message: Did you mean 'its other cons'?
Suggestion: its other cons
...ts do tell about where it is wanting or it’s other cons as well, that might help the creator to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, look, really, second, secondly, so, well, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2183.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 469.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.65458422175 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65364457471 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64007044406 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479744136461 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 683.1 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3540902123 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.894736842 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6842105263 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47368421053 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164172939143 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469056475435 0.0831039109588 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0376874856742 0.0758088955206 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0865486929942 0.150359130593 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0366575438368 0.0667264976115 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.99 12.1639044944 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 100.480337079 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.