Rogerian argument



A Rogerian argument is a type of argument in which one tries to seek a middle ground between two opposing arguments rather than trying to dictate a "winner" unlike in a traditional Aristotelian argument. This kind of argument is largely inspired by the 20th-century American psychologist One may "win" in a Rogerian argument by successfully convincing the opponent to consider alternative arguments.

Alternative name

 * Rogerian rhetoric

Typical usage in argument

 * 1) Person 1: Raises argument $$A_1$$
 * 2) Person 2: Raises argument $$A_2$$
 * 3) Person 1 or 2: Creates argument $$A_3$$, a 'compromise' of $$A_1$$ and $$A_2$$ that typically contains premises from both $$A_1$$ and $$A_2$$
 * 4) Person 1 or 2: Argues argument $$A_3$$ typically using the combined premises of $$A_1$$ and $$A_2$$

As rhetoric versus an argument
Suppose that the Rogerian argument technique is being used on two arguments, $$A_1$$ and $$A_2$$, that are disjoint. That is, $$A_1 \cap A_2=\emptyset$$. Then, it is impossible to have a formal argument using Rogerian argument techniques; there are no common premises. At this point, the purpose of deploying Rogerian rhetoric is more analogous to a negotiation medium than an argument technique whose purpose is to simply understand the opposing argument rather than trying to change it.