However, rogerian argument does come with disadvantages.

There are several ways to write persuasively as we have discussed already; the content changes based on your audience and purpose. This assignment is based on Carl Rogers theory of mediation. The premise is that while we may not agree, reasonable people can come to a conclusion that works for everyone. Basically, meeting in the middle. Below is a link explaining Rogerian style argument, and the requirements of your next assignment. READ THIS BEFORE moving forward.
audience: the opposition purpose: find middle ground
requirements: 2-3 pages (approx. 1000-1100 words), at least 3 sources, in text citations, work cited page, MLA formatted.
This week post your topics and where you may go with them. Make sure you are not using a topic that is not acceptable. A list of those topics is in your syllabus. Notice the example/layout below has 4 points. Each of those represent a paragraph, so this essay will be a 4 paragraph essay as outlined below.
Rogerian Argument
The Rogerian argument (or Rogerian rhetoric) is a form of argumentative reasoning that aims to establish a middle ground between parties with opposing viewpoints or goals. Developed by psychotherapist Carl Rogers and adapted to rhetoric by writing scholars Young, Becker, and Pike, the speaker seeks compromise, acknowledging positive aspects of each party’s argument to arrive at a mutually-beneficial solution to an issue.
You may already use Rogerian argument in your everyday life to negotiate with your friends, family, and/or romantic partners. For example, if you wanted to watch a comedy and your friend wanted to watch a romance, you might compromise by offering to watch a rom-com, as this offers each of you a bit of what you are looking for in that particular moment. Note, however, that this style of argument is decidedly less common in academic settings, where various empirical or theoretical notions of truth are often prized above the practical advantages of the Rogerian method.
While Aristotelian styles of argument are often seen as eristic (concerned primarily with winning), the Rogerian argument can be viewed as more dialectic in nature (a conversation between two or more parties with the goal of arriving at some mutually-satisfying solution). Thus, practicing the Rogerian argument will enhance your ability to understand the complex relations of opposing viewpoints and provide tools for addressing such discrepancies sympathetically. It’s also great for day-to-day conflict resolution at home or in the workplace.
However, Rogerian argument does come with disadvantages. For example, because Rogerian argument relies on compromise between opposing parties, it may not work well when your opponents are unwilling or unable to compromise, or if they are arguing in bad faith (e.g., they care only about winning). It may also lead to sub-optimal solutions if your opponent’s position is demonstrably wrong, since in this case you may nevertheless be forced to sacrifice some of your (ostensibly superior) goals order to accommodate your opponent’s (inferior) ones.
Objectives
In “Rhetoric: Discovery and Change” (1970), Young, Becker, and Pike describe the primary aims of the Rogerian argument as follows:
to convey to the reader that he is understood,
to delineate the area within which he believes the reader’s position to be valid, and
to induce him to believe that he and the writer share similar moral qualities (honesty, integrity, and good will) and aspirations (the desire to discover a mutually acceptable solution).
The first aim shows the reader that you understand the complexities of the argument and that you have listened sympathetically to what it is they have to say. This is important, because the success of the Rogerian arguments relies on cooperation and collaboration. The second aim puts this understanding into practice by seeking a symbiotic solution. The third aim builds ethos and rapport between the parties. If audiences believe they share a value system with a speaker or writer, they are more likely to agree to the terms of whatever solution is presented.
While each of these aims is important, Young, Becker, and Pike stress that they are just that: aims, not steps. You should not necessarily view these aims as occurring in a linear, step-by-step process. The authors present a synthesized discussion of what a successful Rogerian argument should contain, but they eschew any formalized structure. The structure of the argument should instead be determined by the speaker, and it should be modified and adapted according to the rhetorical situation at hand.