Paper Example on Rogerian Latter Argument

Introduction

Sometimes people misconstrue ideological divergence to annoyance due to predetermined perspectives. Ideally, disagreements in positions should yield consensus since it provides viable ground for active debate and compromises whichever side one opts to take. Therefore, it should never attract quarreling whatsoever, but both parties should objectively pursue their issues on standpoints that ensure equal representation. A proactive dimension can certainly yield better prospects when handling issues with people that hold contrary views. It is on this background that this paper develops a Rogerian argument in persuading consenting views towards attaining a common ground.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

It should be acknowledged that you may differ with someone basically on ideological perspective as opposed to your physical or emotional character. It does not mean that you get weaker simply on account of divergence in views. Instead, you become stronger when one can ascertain their relevance through listening and learning. It does not help either if you get emotionally or physically injured when someone takes a different stance (Cassity 46). You must acknowledge the significance of someone's reasoning before personalizing his behavior.

Psychologically, attitude determines your vision and how you relate it with the rest of the world. When you develop a negative attitude towards a subject or a person then definitely it affects the interpretation regarding such a person. Similarly, when you become positive of your worldview then chances of finding everything positive increases. However, accommodating other people's views or disagreeing with them do not imply error in reasoning but suggest high adaptability with the reality. Philosophically, some issues can never merit and should, therefore, be pursued as such (Cassity 46). Your objection should be informed by a valid argument, not farfetched thought. The use of emphatic statements equally does not mean validity in objecting or dissenting on an issue.

Before disagreeing on the issue, you should balance it on a merit scale. First, enumerate your reasons informing your disapproval before you publicly differ on it. Disagreeing would viably become a suitable way of registering your displeasure since it allows the other party to construe your issues accurately devoid of errors and approximations. The debate is always intricate and emotive especially if the topic involved is controversial. You must endeavor to practice turn-taking when registering your displeasure on a given issue. The fact that you disagree on the issue under discussion does not render it invalid (Jackson 314). If you want to invalidate the same, then raise your objections politely without causing provocations whatsoever.

Issue scrutiny enables you to fact check before raising a contrary proposition that sometimes can end up backfiring. You occupy an equal prospect in a discussion, and utmost confidence is your strength when confronting an issue under discussion. Somebody can only listen to your ideology if you present your points with high-level confidence. You must shun acts that would portray you shy. Therefore, you must choose a creative but elaborate type of communication. Concentrate only on issues that raise an active objection when you disapprove the subject under discussion (Jackson 320). You risk losing in a discussion by using abusive arguments aimed at intimidating an opponent. However, you become stronger by listening to everything your opponent is prosecuting then deconstructing it one at a time.

While it would save you energy and time to ignore a difficult person in an argument, consider empathy. Try fitting in their situations and approach the discussion with an open but reasonable mind. Do not get carried away with the emotional portrayal of issues by an opponent but every decision should uniquely suit the situation under consideration. When you feel the frustration from the opponent, then it becomes easier in dismissing their arguments without hurting their feelings (Cheung 313). Do not force an opponent in accepting defeat in an argument but make him understand that your position is weightier than his based on advanced facts and evidence.

Finally, humor intended correction can perform a vital role when making a proposition without necessarily causing an opponent angry. The use of figurative language that is intended to create an instance of laughter or mirth can objectively drive the point home. Try to remain relevant by using popular means while discussing with somebody as opposed to contradicting even the obvious. You risk annoying an opponent if you constantly castigate his issue even when it is valid (Cheung 320). You do not make a weaker person by losing fairly an argument. Therefore, remain on point by fairly addressing contradictive issues with an open mind and on a balance of merit scale.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a debate requires a fair listener that perceives both winning and losing as equal probability given the nature of different topics argued. Argumentative topics that are controversial should be pursued objectively by fact-checking as opposed to rumoring. You should remain relevant while practicing the tenets of turn taking. Objecting a contrary opinion can cause your opponent to adopt your reasoning as opposed to using abusive words towards your opponent. Therefore, this paper has developed a Rogerian argument in persuading consenting views towards attaining a common ground.

Works Cited

Cassity, Kathleen j. "Through Debate and Beyond: Preparing Students for Non-Agonistic Rogerian Argument." Beyond the Frontier: Innovations in First-year Composition (2015): 46.

Cheung, Johnson CS. "Behind the mirror: what Rogerian "Technique" is NOT." Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 13.4 (2014): 312-322.

Jackson, Rachel C. "Locating Oklahoma: Critical Regionalism and Tran-rhetorical Analysis in the Composition Classroom." College Composition and Communication (2014): 301-326.