Some people think it's better to choose friends who always have the same opinions as them. Other people believe it's good to have friends who sometimes disagree with them. discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

It is often argued by many individuals between selecting friends with similar agreements, while others feel that disagreements are

also

essential when it comes to choosing their close friends. In

this

essay, I will discuss both sides of the argument and explain my support for the latter view. On the one hand, those who advocate may have companions with the same opinions is likely to establish a strong relationship with each other;

this

is because it can require long-term bonding between two persons, which leads to no dispute among them.

For instance

, if a bunch of friends is planning to spend leisure time on weekends rather than discussing which place to go, they opt for one place without any difficulty.

In contrast

, having various opinions end up with a plan for a flight.

Therefore

, due to these reasons, friendship with common belief runs smoothly.

However

, I would argue that close friends with unsimilar interests can play a significant role as a broadminded. The reason behind

this

is that friend circles with various backgrounds assist the level of insights to increase and look at the perspective, which is worth quite a bit. To illustrate

this

, when your friend has opted for customs and culture in order to follow the practice of their religion, even though you follow the opposite path but you respect the differences of other classmates. whereas,

this

sort of mentality could not be achieved with general mindset friends and

thus

, leads to reduced discrimination. In conclusion,

although

people believe to might have friends with common interests, which is beneficial for the long run and unlikely chances of disputes among themselves. In my view, friends have with uncommon likes teach to honour preferences because of understanding their point of view.