Argument as Rational Discourse
To make an argument,
you need an issue.
Issue:
Swine Flu or H1N1
How is this an
issue?
To get to the heart
of an issue, you
need a question
at issue.
Question at issue:
Is the media
exploiting H1N1
(formerly known
as Swine Flu)?
Form a Question at Issue for the
following Topics













Global Warming / Climate Change
Teen Pregnancy
Gay Marriage
The Economy
President Obama
Technology: MySpace / Facebook / Twittering / Sexting
Your Generation
Drugs
War on Terrorism
Prisons
Illegal Immigration
Bush Administration
Torture
Relationship of Question at Issue
to Claim (Thesis)
Question at Issue:
Is the media exploiting H1N1 (formerly
known as Swine Flu)?
Your Claim:
The media is exploiting H1N1.
Or
The media is not exploiting N1N1
Or?
Employing the Rogerian Strategy
from Issue to Strategy
 Carl H. Rogers (1902-1987), best known for his book
On Becoming a Person, was a psychotherapist, not a
writer.
Rogers:
“When we do not listen,
we do not grow.”
 To avoid this lack of opportunity for growth,
the Rogerian Strategy requires participants
in arguments to become partners, not
adversaries.
 Rogers points out “when we engage in an
argument, if we feel that our integrity or our
identity is threatened, we stiffen our
resistance” (Stubbs 66).
 Our opponent may have given good reasons,
but because of his or her aggressive or even
threatening approach, we may not be open to
them. Consequently, an opportunity to gain
knowledge—to grow—is lost.
 If we view argument as dialogue, an open
exchange of ideas directed toward mutual
understanding, we may find a more
responsive audience and thus have a greater
success with changing people’s opinions.
Manipulation?
Consider how you
respond to people
who seem to have a
well-rounded,
informed opinion.
What happens to
their ethos?
Empathy is the keyword
 As Rogers suggests, the writer should “see the
expressed idea and attitude from the other
person’s point of view, to sense how it feels to
him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard
to the thing he is talking about.”
How would Carl Rogers
break up a bar fight?
 Writers generally
interested in
persuading others
will educate
themselves, by
listening and
reading.
 This is a path to
wisdom.
By employing the Rogerian Strategy:
 one can show sympathetic understanding of
the opposing argument;
 one can recognize what is valid in it;
 one can recognize and demonstrate that
those who take the other side are
nonetheless persons of goodwill (or at least
present themselves this way).
Therefore, the Rogerian Argument
is non-confrontational, collegial, and
friendly;
respects other views and allows for
plural truths;
And seeks to achieve some degree of
assent (agreement) rather than
convince utterly.
The Rogerian Strategy: A Typical Outline
1. It usually begins by exploring common ground
the writer shares with the audience—gains the
interests from parties on both sides of the
issue. Think of the basic human values the two
sides might share. For example, for the issue
of H1N1, health concerns about a pandemic is
good common ground.
2. May move to some background information/
history on the issue, like the 1918 Influenza
Pandemic that killed between 20 and 40 million
people.
3. Moves towards an objectively phrased
statement that defines the issue.
For example: While some people feel as though
the H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) should be a major
concern to all of us, others feel as though it is
yet another example of our out of control media.
4. Presents a Question at Issue.
For example: Is the media exploiting the H1N1
situation?
5. Presents a complete and neutrally worded analysis of
one side’s position. You should demonstrate that you
understand their position and their reasons for holding
it. You should carefully avoid any suggestion that this
position is more just, more moral, or more sensitive than
the opposing position.
6. Presents a complete and neutrally worded analysis of
the other side’s position. You should demonstrate that
you understand their position and their reasons for
holding it. You should carefully avoid any suggestion
that this position is more just, more moral, or more
sensitive than the opposing position—even though the
second side presented is typically the author’s position
(although your position may be a synthesis of the two,
or something entirely new).
7. An analysis of what the two positions have in
common and what goals and values they
share. This discussion should be more specific
than the common ground used to engage the
two sides (see #1). Both sides in our example
share concern about this specific flu pandemic,
public health, and our ability to receive accurate
information from the media. What else?
8. A presentation of your position—your claim (thesis, key
assertion, conclusion). You cannot be neutral here. This
is where you weigh in; however, remain consistent
with the Rogerian style—this is not your time to
“attack” the opponent, but rather your time to point
out why your side will benefit all.
Your position may align with one of the sides presented;
it may be a synthesis of the two sides; or it may be an
additional “side.” Remember, there are more than two
sides to every issue. For example: While a flu pandemic
is certainly something we should be prepared for, it is
important to look at the recent history of the media and
the corporations behind it to fully understand how they
benefit from exploiting H1N1. Fear is known to…
Current Issues via Editorial Cartoons
Identify a Question at Issue