Argumentative Writing

Wenduta · Post by **Wenduta** » 06 Apr 2013, 17:03

I just discovered a new style of argumentative writing which is the Rogerian argument. This style of argument not only presents the writer's argument, but it also presents that of the opposing side and focuses on finding a mutual compromise to the conflict.

Caseydiviolette · Post by **Caseydiviolette** » 14 Apr 2013, 22:58

I did this form of writing in a college course a few years back. It was rather interesting. As I understand, it is not only important to represent both sides of an argument, but also to disprove the opposing side. Acknowledgement with sound logic to disprove the other side strengthens your own argument tenfold.

Wenduta · Post by **Wenduta** » 15 Apr 2013, 22:36

Yes sound logic is absolutely key! Avoiding logical fallacies definitely strengthens your argument, but also identifying them in the opposing argument improves your argument as well.

lady_charlie · Post by **lady_charlie** » 18 Apr 2013, 19:41

I did not know what this was so I looked it up. It sounds like conflict resolution through the determination of common ground and the ability to compromise or anyway empathize. So as an active listener, when I disagree or am not sure I understand, I often react by repeating what the other person just said. No comments or questions, just helping define what they said and make it clear to both sides what is actually happening before things get out of control.

I really started getting into this idea and found myself actually thinking about how I could use this in real life, and suddenly found myself involuntarily humming Breakfast at Tiffany's.

I might be too shallow for logical discourse.

Wenduta · Post by **Wenduta** » 20 Apr 2013, 05:37

The purpose of the Rogerian style of argumentation is conflict resolution but with a less forceful approach. The goal is for each side to come to a feasible compromise. Repeating what the other person said is a large part of the Rogerian because it shows that the other person understands the other point of view. This style of argumentation is mostly suitable, I think, for resolving interpersonal conflicts and not necessarily bigger conflicts such as the issue of abortion or gun control.

lady_charlie · Post by **lady_charlie** » 20 Apr 2013, 07:21

It is funny how many small conflicts we can prevent simply by helping each other define the problem.
Many times when I repeat the exact words I just heard in the tone of voice I received them, the other person says, no, that is not what I said at all.
Lewis Carroll said, say what you mean and mean what you say!

Fran · Post by **Fran** » 20 Apr 2013, 08:35

lady_charlie wrote:It is funny how many small conflicts we can prevent simply by helping each other define the problem.
Many times when I repeat the exact words I just heard in the tone of voice I received them, the other person says, no, that is not what I said at all.
Lewis Carroll said, say what you mean and mean what you say!

A little bit like: "I know you think you understand what I just said but I don't think you realise that what you heard in not what I meant." I used to have a boss who had that sign on his desk.

lady_charlie · Post by **lady_charlie** » 20 Apr 2013, 09:00

I for one need to work on choosing my words more carefully before I say anything.
When I think before I speak I often end up not saying anything or I say something entirely different than I was going to.

Wenduta · Post by **Wenduta** » 20 Apr 2013, 13:21

Many people today say a lot of things they don't mean. Someone once told me that it is easier to take harsh words back when they are spoken, than when they are written. When words are written, they are recorded and after the send button is pushed, there's no going back. This is why it's important to think things through before taking action! If I verbalized everything that popped up in my head, I would find myself in trouble.