The Rogerian Argument
In the world we live in there will always be opposing points of view. However, there will be times when the differences will have to be resolved to some extent in order to function as a society. This is commonly referred to as meeting in the middle or reaching some form of compromise. The Rogerian argument is one that seeks compromise and not confrontation. It is designed to demonstrate an understanding of more than just one point of view and seeks a solution that helps both sides equally. If one side gets everything they want-that is a Toulmin argument. Here, both sides must walk away with something but not everything.
The major differences between the Toulmin and Rogerian are the approach to the issue. The Rogerian argument works on understanding the different sides in a fair and unbiased manner recognizing not only their strengths but their weaknesses as well.
Next they find common areas which are points that BOTH sides can agree on. Once the realization of common ground has been established, the ability to use that common ground to build trust and the opportunity to work together to achieve something better can both sides moved forward.
Lastly a proposal is developed that suggests what should happen and why both sides should move forward with following the proposal.
In summing up the major differences:
- When compared to the Toulmin argument which takes the position of I am right and you are wrong, this argument is much friendlier so to speak with very neutral and unbiased language.
- Time and evidence is devoted to showing each side beliefs but also a part of each side that agrees with the other point(s) of view.
- Evidence in general is more central or in the middle, rather than polarized or extremist.
- The Toulmin begins with a claim/thesis, the Rogerian ENDS on a claim/thesis.
SAMPLE OUTLINE OF ROGERIAN ARGUMENT
THE INTRODUCTION:
- Grabber is to get the readers interest. A grabber should try to not give away the topic of the paper. The grabber begins with the title of the paper and continues into the first /second sentence.
- Provide a basic overview of the controversy surrounding the issue. What is the problem? What are the differing views?
- Develop a question that suggests the direction the paper will take but avoids giving a full thesis statement that suggests a course of action. Example: The differing points of view on abortion may be diverse but if the value of a human life affects everyone then why is it so hard to find common ground? (Partial thesis of what and why we should care.)
General layout of support paragraph:
- Topic sentence that correlates to the thesis statement.
- Introduces your source (applies to Ethos).
- Show the source support/evidence (applies to Logos).
- Discuss how support/evidence supports topic (may apply to Pathos).
- Make direct connection to greater purpose/warrant/why care aspect in introduction (applies to Pathos).
Most would agree that society should do everything in their power to improve the longevity and quality of all people (what was discussed in position 1) but it should not be at the expense of human life (what will be discussed in position 2).
POSITION 2: Repeat the same purpose and layout as described for position 1. This section will describe one of the positions. The writer will provide evidence for this position and also include a discussion with evidence on when this position would agree that other position would indeed be valid or correct.
RECONCILIATION : This is where we develop a sense of value/benefit of cooperation by examining what might be achieved by cooperation by using the strengths/points of agreement developed earlier.
Sample layout:
- Establishes a point that both sides can agree on (usually related to a warrant/assumption).
- Develop the strength of each position (go back to each point you developed in each position where both sides would agree).
- Suggests “potential” of what might be achieved by using these strengths and working together. Key word here is potential…be vague and non specific. Remember that this is the last moment to build some more trust before we lay out our proposal.
If both sides can agree that human life is precious and that the people should have the right to protect themselves, then both sides can come to a reconciliation. The strength of the gun control group’s argument is that America should enforce an excessive background check to keep the criminals, the mentally ill and the drug users from easily obtaining firearms. The strength of the gun advocate’s argument is that the law abiding citizen should have easy access to firearms in order to protect themselves. The potential of using the strengths from both sides and working together could lead to less means for mass shootings and other potential threats, which will help make a safer society.
CONCLUSION:
- Make the announcement (thesis statement/proposal) of what action should be taken to help resolve the issue.
- What are the gains for both sides? Explain what each side will receive for following this course of action.
- What does the future look like? Think about what may happen with both sides working together.
Sample: The Government will allow the law abiding citizens to have an easy access to firearms and to enforce stricter background checks to keep the firearms away from the mentally ill and the criminals thereby keeping America and its citizens safe. The gain for the gun control group is that they enforce certain laws that they believe will make America safer, by making it harder for the criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. The gain for the gun advocates is that the law abiding citizens are still able to easily access firearms, so that they are able to protect themselves and that the criminals will not be able to take advantage of the law abiding citizens. If both sides work together the future for America looks like a safer society and that the law abiding citizens can go on with their regular activities without worrying about the possibility of a shooting massacre.
Remember to check the assignment sheet from your instructor!