Argument as Rational Discourse To make an argument, you need an issue. Topic: Death of Trayvon Martin How is this an issue?

Argument as Rational Discourse

To make an argument, you

need an issue.

Topic:

Death of Trayvon Martin

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 the death of

Trayvon Martin?

Form a Question at Issue for the following Topics

• Pink Slime• 1st Amendment • Teen Pregnancy• Gay Marriage• Technology: MySpace / Facebook / Twittering /

Sexting • Your Generation • Legalizing Marijuana • War on Terrorism• Prisons• Illegal Immigration• Media

Relationship of Question at Issue to Claim (Thesis)

Question at Issue: Is the media exploiting the death of Trayvon

Martin?

Your Claim:The media is exploiting the death of Trayvon

Martin.Or

The media is not exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin

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.

• A path to wisdom,

this is.

By employing the Rogerian Strategy:

• one can show empathetic 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. Begin by exploring common ground the writer shares with the audience—gain the interest from parties on two different sides of the issue. Think of the basic human values the two sides might share.

For example, two years ago a big issue in the news was the H1N1 flu (swine flu). With that issue, the paper could begin with health concerns about a pandemic.

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 the media is exploiting the subject for personal gain.

4. Presents a Question at Issue. For example: Is the media exploiting H1N1 for personal gain?

5. Presents a complete and neutrally worded analysis of your opponent’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. Employ a minimum of three sources in this portion of your paper.

For example: Those who feel the media is not exploiting H1N1, point to the public need to be informed…

6. Presents a complete and carefully worded analysis of your position. You should demonstrate that you understand your position and have clear reasons for holding it. You should carefully avoid any suggestion that your position is more just, more moral, or more sensitive than the opposing position. Employ three sources in this portion of your paper.

For example: While the public does need to be informed, it is important to point out that the news media is a business driven by ratings, and ratings…

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).

With our sample H1N1 issue, both sides in our example share concern about public health, prevention, how the

media exploits our fears, and our ability to receive accurate information from the media.

8. Finally, a direct presentation of your position—your claim (thesis, key assertion, conclusion) and how it will benefit both sides. This is where you attempt to persuade the other side that your position will benefit all; 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 improve the situation for both sides.

Another option:Your position may align with the second side 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…

To begin your assignment:

Find a contemporary (within last year) editorial cartoon that represents an issue that interests, intrigues, inflames you!