Talk:Rogerian argument

A Rogerian argument is an argument in a formal sense. Also, it's not finding a middle ground between $$P$$ and $$\neg P$$ necessarily ("opposing" does not mean negation). It is an argument as follows:

While I may agree that it is more of a negotiation medium than a real argument, it certainly does not try to find middle ground between negations of statements as written "not-P." The references I've been finding support that it 'can' be an argument if done in the previously mentioned way. I think it is inaccurate to say that it can't be an argument in a formal sense. Also, I noticed you used "P". This is typically notation for statements, not arguments. Zackarycw (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Person 1 raises argument A1
 * 2) Person 2 raises argument A2
 * 3) One of the persons manifests argument A3, a 'compromise' of A1 and A2
 * 4) Said person does formally argue point A3
 * I have not come across these before, so can't claim expertise, but I can't find any evidence that this is a viable technique for formal arguments. The only source here was a writing lab, which could be a clue it's meant only to be used for rhetorical rather than formal argumentation. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added some sources that I've been researching for this article. If you'd like, I can point to pages of these books that lead to argument techniques being deployed in formal argument. You do raise a good point that IF the two opposing arguments are disjoint (like two statements being the negation of each other), then it is impossible to have a formal argument. Thanks for bringing that up. I added a section dedicated to when Rogerian rhetoric cannot be formal argument. Thank you for contributing to the article, I really appreciate it. If you'd like more of my sources I'm researching from, I'd love to provide them. Thanks for the edits ~ Zackarycw (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks better. I don't want to tread too much on others' drafts, so would prefer you to develop this as you see fit, since my point is now incorporated in the draft.CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks better. I don't want to tread too much on others' drafts, so would prefer you to develop this as you see fit, since my point is now incorporated in the draft.CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this ready for main space?
I know that I have been taking a break and haven't had time to edit this, but... I'm not sure if this is ready to not be a Draft, yet. This is still a stub in every sense. In my opinion, this article needs much more work, by anyone really, before it gets out of Draft space. Zackarycw (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)