American psychologist Carl R. Rogers propagated his "principles of communications," a form of discussion based on finding common ground. He proposed trying to understand our adversary's position, by listening to him, before adopting a point of view without considering those factors.
This form of reasoning is the opposite of Aristotelian argumentation which relies upon logos, ethos, and pathos and is an adversarial form of debate, because it attempts to find compromise between two sides.
Young, Becker and Pike identified four stages:
- An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.
- A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.
- A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
- A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better.
- Classical and Rogerian Arguments HTML
- Furthering Appropriation: Trust and the Rhetorical Rogers
- Rogerian Argumentation
- How to Write the Rogerian Argument
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Just Shut Up and Listen to Your Enemy - Whatever Happened to Rogerian Argument? By KAZ DZIAMKA, Counterpunch, May 16, 2007
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 What is Rogerian Argument? by Kate Kiefer, Colorado State University
- ↑ Outline of Rogerian argument Empire State College
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric Douglas Brent, University of Calgary