- UID
- 347736
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2008-6-8
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The best test of arguments its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint
The speaker asserts that the best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an apposing viewpoint. As far as I am concerned, I do not agree with this speaker that convincing someone with an opposing viewpoint is the best test of value of the argument. In my view, this view is superficial and one side. It is useful but not the best test indicator of argument. There still are plenty other factors to test the argument.
Firstly, convincing opponent is not the ultimate aim for the best argument. When people started on an argument, we should know why they take participated into it. One of the main purposes of argument is to help people to develop decision awareness. People take the position in the argument and the opponent challenges it from many points of the view.
moreover, after hearing dissent information, they could be more wisdom for the further decision. If they defend the position against all objections and they will find that there is no contradiction in logic, they could focus on the position then make a wisdom decision.
Secondly, sometimes, argument hardly worked on to convince other people, especially when it referring emotion. For example, we hardly to convince young man to give up loving another person, for once people put them into emotion such as love or hate, it will hardly changed. It is beyond the logic category. Another example is the aesthetic standard of different person. A flower is beautiful or not, a book is interesting or not is based on people’s different standard rather than the argument who wants to convince another.
Furthermore, even if people convince to the opponent in the argument, they prove to their challenger that opponent position is illogical, this does not mean that they are clever than the opponent. For my personal view, the motivation must be help all the members in the argument to develop clear understanding and firm conviction in what they can be logically proven.
Do I mean that we need to against the view of the argument to convince people? Obviously the answer is no. For the utilitarianism view, convincing other people is really aim for an argument. For example, in the political election, delegates who want to convince his audience and opponent in order to get the power in future. This is the best way to value this kind of argument. In these circumstances, I do agree that best test for argument is who is the winner.
To sum up, in my view, I do partly agree with the speaker’s opinion for there are some other standard to judge an argument. The speaker should broad his speculation of this issue. Convincing opponent is not only one dictator to illustrate whether it is good or bad argument. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-10-3 03:57:05
收藏
收藏
楼主
