If the interlocutor disputes the major premise precisely because they dispute the conclusion, the argument provides no dialectical traction and thus begs the question in the pragmatically relevant sense.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

argument(Epistemology and argumentation theory; the 'evidentiary' conception of argument): An evidentiary construct consisting of (1) premises, (2) a conclusion, and (3) an inference from the premises to the conclusion, implying that the conclusion is true, likely true, plausible, or should otherwise be accepted.
begs the question(Informal fallacy in epistemic justification): A circular argument in which warrant for the premises already presupposes the truth of the conclusion
dialectical traction(as used in debate and logic): The ability of an argument to actually move a discussion forward or persuade someone by building on shared ground; if an argument has no 'traction,' it can't gain grip in the conversation.
interlocutor: Socrates' partner in dialogue
major premise(Classification parameter in Qiyās VI.4–VI.5): The first premise in a syllogism, which may be categorical or conditional
pragmatically relevant(as used in philosophy and communication): Matters in a real, practical way to the actual conversation or situation at hand, rather than being only theoretically interesting.

2 topics