1. Don’t hate on your audience.
Rogerian Argument
Don’t hate on your audience.

2. Rogerian “Argument”
Ideas come from psychologist Carl Rogers

3. A few quotes…
“Real communication occurs when we listen with understanding” – Carl Rogers
“The first duty of a wise advocate is to convince his opponents that he understands their arguments, and sympathizes with their just feelings.” –Samuel Taylor Coleridge (English Romantic Poet)
“You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar” -??

4. You don’t pick fights with your audience!
Acknowledges  the  audience’s  point  of  view before presenting  the  author’s opposing viewpoint .   
Supports  the  central  argument without outright  attacking  the  audience’s preconceived notions.

5. Argument v. Persuasion Definitions tend to be “academic”
Some say argument is purely logical, and persuasion contains emotional appeals.
ARGUMENT = discover a truth or conviction
PERSUASION = seeks to change a point of view or ACT on a conviction

6. Rogerian Argument Seeks to establish trust and find COMMON GROUND.
Assumes that audience is comprised of REASONABLE people.
The fault with this model
Seeks to UNDERSTAND the point of view of those with whom they disagree
To start a DIALOGUE or DISCOURSE
BOTH/AND instead of EITHER/OR
WIN/WIN instead of WIN/LOSE

7. Courtroom Example: When you would NOT use Rogerian techniques…
Prosecution and defense argue with EACH OTHER - but the AUDIENCE is really the judge and jury.
In this case, there is no need to be nice or concede ANY points to the opposition. Your goal is to WIN!!

8. Same Thing with DEBATES:
The OPPONENT is not the
AUDIENCE, so you might
not see many Rogerian
techniques when you watch
debates! The goal is to WIN!

9. Sometimes the Loser of the Debate Is (eventually) the Winner…

10. How a Rogerian Argument “Looks”
Intro
Summary of Opposing Views
Statement of Understanding
Statement of Your position
Statement of Contexts
Statement of Benefits
Important parts/pose a solution – here is where you “concede” something to the opposing side and acknowledge that others who think differently from you are also intelligent, reasonable people.

11. Things that Happen in a Rogerian Argument
The Speaker:
Shows (sympathetic) understanding to the opposition.
Demonstrates that those who disagree with them are still reasonable, intelligent people of good will (not fools and idiots).
Is non-confrontational, even friendly (not “my way or the highway”).

12. The Invitational Argument
“Can’t we all just get along?”

13. Goal Based on three principles: Equality Intrinsic value
Self-determination
Aims not to win over another person
To enter a space of mutual regard and exploration
To promote understanding

14. Many narrative essays are invitational arguments.
“Graduation”
“Once More to the Lake”
“The Movie that Changed My Life”
“Shooting an Elephant”

15. A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments
The Toulmin Model
A tool for diagramming
“informal” arguments

16. The four basic elements:
Claim (assertion or proposition)
Grounds (proof, grounds, support)
Warrant (inferential leap)
Qualifier (limitations on the claim)

17. Claims
A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants another to accept.
The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?”
example: “Rosario is an American citizen because she was born in the United States.”
example: “Ellen is going to be a judge on American Idol, so the show will be more popular than ever.”

18. More about claims... There are four basic types of claims:
fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena
judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things
policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken
definition/classification: indicates what criteria are being used to to define a term or what category something falls into

19. Grounds (proof or data)
Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers.
Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning
example: “I’m a vegetarian. One reason is that I feel sorry for the animals. Another reason is to improve my health.”
example: “I made the dinner, so you can do the dishes.

20. More about grounds...
Grounds are the support the arguer offers on behalf of his/her claim. The grounds answer questions such as:
"What is your proof?“
"How do you know?“
"Why?”
example: “It looks like rain. The barometer is falling.”
example: "The other Starbucks I’ve been in had Wi-Fi, so I'll bet this one does too."

21. Still more about grounds...
grounds can be based on:
evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof
source credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so
analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof
premises already held by the listener

22. Clue words for identifying grounds
The grounds for an argument often follow words such as “because,” “since,” “given that…”
example: “Airports should x-ray all luggage because a bomb could be placed in a checked baggage.”
example: “I expect to do well on the test, since I studied all night for it.”

23. Warrants
The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds.
The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the connection between the claim and grounds
The implicit nature of warrants means the “meaning” of an argument is as much a part of the receiver as it is a part of the message.
Some arguments are “multi-warranted,” e.g., based on more than one inferential leap

24. More about warrants...
The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim
example: “Muffin is running a temperature. I’ll bet she has an infection.”
example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever.”
(warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection)
(warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly)

25. Still more about warrants...
warrants can be based on:
ethos: source credibility, authority
logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction
pathos: emotional or motivational appeals
value premises: values shared by, or presumed to be shared by, the receiver(s)
Note: these categories are not mutually exclusive; there is considerable overlap among them.

26. the first triad sample argument 1
The Dodgers are likely to win the ballgame tonight.
They are playing
at home.
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
(unstated) Generalization: The home team enjoys an advantage in baseball.

27. the first triad sample argument 2
Slumdog Millionaire is a wonderful movie.
It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards.
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
(unstated) Sign: A movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives.

28. the first triad sample argument 3
Biff was probably in a fight.
He has a black eye.
Grounds
Claim
Warrant
(unstated) Sign: A black eye is a reliable indicator that a person has been in a fight.
What is the problem with this warrant???

29. the first triad sample argument 4
If you surf at Huntington Beach right after it rains, you risk getting a bacterial infection.
Runoff from the rain washes bacteria into the ocean.
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
(unstated) Cause-effect: Bacteria in the water causes surfers to get ill.

30. Limitations regarding the Toulmin model
Offers a somewhat static view of an argument
Focuses on the argument maker, not the target or respondent
Real-life arguments not always neat or clear
An analytical tool:
Useful for dissecting arguments before or after they’ve been made
Not as useful, practical in the “heat” of an argument
Since warrants are unstated, different listeners may perceive them differently.