In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 

In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 

Debates among different ideas are always attracting our attention. There is never an absolute winner of any fierce debate because each side gains something to improve them: the room for correction and the compromise with the opposite – look at the democratic constitution: that is designed by its founding father who foresaw the inevitability of divided ideas to reduce the outcome of faction-based fighting. However, the benefit of discussion among different ideological blocs is the counterpart of the polarization of our society, which lays the danger of the fall of our democratic values and the possibility of despotic wars. To speak pithily, discussions among people having contrasting points of view generate progress, but it also polarizes us and has a risk to burn our democratic society out. I will give the argument of my point from both sides under historic and contemporary aspects.

In the beginning, let us securitize the progress which discussion makes. Discussion makes progress via several kinds of stuff: first, discussion makes each side find their mistakes in their logic and inspires them to improve the logic. If there were not the discussion between federalists and anti-federalists, Hamilton would have not written the Federalist Paper which founded the base of this now-thriving Republic. It was the Anti-federalists, who provided the counterpart of the advantages of Federalism, that provoked the thoughts bolstering the young constitution. The opposite idea is a respectful enemy for us to enhance ourselves, just like the old Chinese aphorism by Mencius goes, “Life springs from sorrow and calamity; death comes from ease and pleasure.” If we do not always encounter fights provided by the arena of different ideas, our beliefs will die from pleasure and ease.

Also, discussion enhances the diversity of our society through “the marketplace of ideas” which was founded as a principle in the first amendment. A healthy and bourgeoning society will not only allow one tone to exist; as I have mentioned above, the society will soon wither from few competitions. Additionally, people will have a partial vision and not tolerate the differences. By discussing different ideas, we can embrace what we do not know before, and further democratize our society by tolerating differences even we despise. A famous case is the landmark decision of the Supreme Court Texas vs. Johnson: Supreme Court decided with a divided 5-4 rule, protecting the freedom of speech. There are two layers of fierce discussions: one is the value this country embraces, and the other is the limit of free speech. Via the two we diversify the understanding of our founding values and distinguish us from the authoritarian countries whose citizens (more precisely, humble subjects) must respect the rule of their rulers.

However, the progress derives from an assumption that we want to win the game against our opponents. Free discussions are more like a compromise than a voluntary choice. That means the progress from discussion is based on the nature of our society: absolute division. The ontological base coincides with the argument from philosopher Thomas Hobbes: we live in the “State of Nature” in which everyone is against others. To limit the unsettlement of the State of Nature, we have to make social contact to respect everyone’s existence. A debate is a war in the field of ideology. However, what if the debate is unlimited? As a person born in the 21st Century, the brute of World War II and the insecurity under the Nuclear Threat are a past but still convivial picture. The division between different ideologies caused so many nightmares for us humans. Unfortunately, we are experiencing the suffering of discussion again in the US now: polarization.

To conclude, I agree with the argument that in many situations progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view, but it is based on the assumption of the “State of Nature” that everyone is at war against everything except him/herself, which could cause ardent fighting and tear our society. Some developmental countries also give us the challenge of free discussion: some authoritarian countries have incredible economic miracles without the exchange of ideas, like Singapore and China. They claim that their unified ideology helps their countries focus more on development than discussion. However, that may assert our argument too – their cases are the counterpart of our points that “discussion makes progress.”