The challenge consists, basically, in refuting some idea or belief, starting from an argument that explains the reason for the error on the fundamental basis of that statement. This term is much more common in the legal field, within which it can be challenged during the development of a case or at the end of it, functioning as a strategy to win the trial. Seen in detail, it is about the set of opportunities that either of the two parties have, which seek to discredit the other's version of events, so that, when a bench throws its argument towards the jury, the opposite to it reconstructs, in his favor, what happened and, consolidating in what he has to say, seeks to convince the judges of his story.
However, this is not only the context within which the challenge can stand out; It is also a resource used if it is believed that the development of a trial or its verdict has not complied with the set of necessary rules within the judicial system of a country (these being established in order to avoid corruption or errors in the development of a case) or because it is considered unfair. All of this refers to the annulment of the decision made by the judge regarding the case.
In addition to this, you can also make some challenges in electoral matters, in order to avoid some negligence within the entire process. The term is equally apt to describe the everyday situation in which ideas other than one's own are rejected, using the structure of what is considered correct as a defense.
