Rogerian Arguments

Learning Objectives

  • Practice the art of responding in Rogerian-style debate by finding common ground in an argument

Arguments, including academic arguments at times, can be strong and forceful. Such an argument is sometimes called Aristotelian or classical argument, and seems to project: “this is my assertion, and here’s why I am right.” But that kind of argument isn’t going to work in all situations. When your audience may potentially be unreceptive to your side of the issue it can be a good idea to try to find common ground and shared beliefs. The Rogerian argument finds that common ground. This type of argument is named after psychologist Carl Rogers, who emphasized the importance of listening and empathizing with others in a type of therapy called client-centered therapy.

Rogerian Arguments

Now that we have analyzed some opposing claims, let’s use this same topic to practice organizing our thoughts following the Rogerian method. This method won’t automatically make disagreements disappear, but it can serve as a way to reduce tension as you come to recognize multiple sides to arguments. Try to take the time to learn from those who think differently than you do—and not just for the sake of strengthening your own argument, but so that you can truly better understand the issues and the other person. In a world where many arguments happen online, never forget the humanity of others and recognize that your words have power—both for good and bad. Rogerian arguments can be verbal or written. The basic idea is that you try to relate to the other side and truly listen to their perspectives.

The Rogerian argument is a debate format that can be used to defend your perspective while also acknowledging the opposing side of an argument. This type of argument is used to identify your own bias and understand all perspectives of an issue. In a nutshell, understanding is even more important than “winning.” Much like the conversation between you and a friend about America’s role as the world police, the Rogerian argument can help you respond in a respectful and organized manner.

The purpose of the Rogerian argument is to:

  • Convey understanding between opposing perspectives
  • To acknowledge and portray an understanding of the opposing side
  • To provide common ground and mutual understanding

Rogerian Arguments Step-by-Step

Here is a summary of the basic strategy for a Rogerian argument:

  1. First, introduce the problem.
  2. Acknowledge the other side before you present your side of the issue.
  3. Next, you should carefully present your side of the issue in a way that does not dismiss the other side.
  4. You should then work to bring the two sides together. Help your audience see the benefits of the middle ground. Make your proposal for the middle ground here, and be sure to use an even, respectful tone.
  5. Finally, in your conclusion, remind your audience of the balanced perspective you have presented and make it clear how both sides benefit when they meet in the middle.

Try It

Responding Respectfully

One of the key aspects of the Rogerian argument style is responding respectfully to arguments even if you don’t agree with them. Let’s practice this now.

Try It

Practice responding in a civil discussion by typing a respectful response to each of the following statements.

Statement: It has to be all or nothing. America has to be involved in all foreign affairs or none at all!

Let’s try responding to another statement.

Statement: Any kind of international involvement will lead us to war, we should just be isolationists!

Creating a Rogerian Argument

Now that we know the step-by-step process for creating a Rogerian style argument, let’s take a look at a few examples.

Rogerian Argument Example 1

Let’s take a look at what a Rogerian Argument looks like while addressing the controversy over pineapple on pizza.

1. Introduce the problem: One of the best foods you can find in America is delivery style pizza, but there is little agreement about what toppings are best. Cheese and pepperoni are classic options, but beyond those two, people have strong feelings about what deserves a spot on a savory pie—anchovies? Green peppers? Pineapple? Many oppose the idea of fruit on a pizza, but with its tangy sweetness, pineapple proves to be a delicious addition to any pizza. Which team are you on? Pineapple or no pineapple?

2. Acknowledge the other side: Now, I can see why traditional pizza with pepperoni and cheese are in the top rankings for flavor—they are delicious. You can’t go wrong with traditional pizza flavors that remind us of the busy streets of New York on a spring day. Original pizza chefs crafted pizza to include the traditional savory taste that pepperoni has to offer, and that tradition should be acknowledged.

3. Present your side: Although traditional pizza toppings are delicious, there is nothing wrong with modifying and experimenting with other flavors. Pizzas, in their basic form, essentially beg for experimentation. Want to try it with barbeque sauce on top? Honey? Corn and peas? Why not? I personally enjoy a wide variety of pizza toppings including pepperoni, pineapple, chicken and bacon, and even dessert pizza! Of these option, pineapple is an obvious winner. It provides just the right amount of sweetness, and pairs perfectly with ham or bacon. The unique savory and sweet flavor from the pineapple enhances the pizza experience. I’m not the only one who thinks this way—nearly every pizza shop in America includes a pineapple option on the menu.

4. Bring the two sides together: Whether you enjoy pineapple on your pizza, traditional pepperoni, or any topping in between, all pizza eaters should unite in the truth that pizza is one of the best meals you can share. Pizza is enjoyed all around the world and can be adapted to many different cuisine styles and tastes.

5. Remind your audience of a balanced perspective: Although I reside on team pineapple, I would not judge another for enjoying a more traditional taste. Next time you order delivery pizza, remember that my grandma always says “there is no such thing as a bad pizza!”

Activity #2

Let’s take a look at another, perhaps more consequential, example argument. This time the topic is America’s role in international affairs.

1. Introduce the problem: America’s role in international affairs is a controversial and complicated problem as seen in the Afghanistan refugee crisis, the most recent war between Russia and Ukraine, and past U.S. involvement in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Is it America’s duty and responsibility as a leading world power to extend its military might into international security concerns? How do we decide when and how to intervene in international problems?

In your words, what would you say is the problem the above passage describes?

2. Acknowledge the other side: I understand that many may say that it is our duty to rescue and defend those who cannot defend themselves, and that because we have the military, resources, and power to intervene, we should when necessary. This type of perspective usually stems from good intentions toward humanitarian efforts.

What part of the above passage serves to acknowledge the other side of the argument?

3. Present your side: I believe that America’s international role should be based on the immediate threat to American democracy and freedom as well as the domestic state of our economy and country. International concerns should always be met with diplomacy first and decision makers should be counseled by military experts. Getting involved prematurely in international issues has cost the U.S. too many lives and resources; these issues may have been better solved through peace organizations or collective efforts, allowing other countries more time to assume shared responsibility.

What is the author’s side of the argument?

4. Bring the two sides together: I recognize that it is challenging to pick one definitive way as the “right” way for the United States to be involved in world affairs. International relations are complicated. Nations are bound to have conflict; political, economic, and social issues are nothing new. While there are advantages to reducing America’s meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, there are certainly times when it is justified. Both sides to this argument pose valuable opinions and perspectives that should be considered when making foreign policy decisions.

How does the author bring the two sides together?

5. Remind your audience of the balanced perspective: Ultimately, I believe everyone should be informed about America’s historical role as the world police before considering the issue. A careful look at history shows that the United States has been involved in hundreds of global conflicts and sometimes these proved beneficial, and sometimes they were not. It is important to also consider the impact that taking on the role of world police has on the United States at home. It shapes the way that spending is prioritized, how the economy runs, and comes at too great a cost to innocent lives. While there are certainly times the United States should intervene, the country should not be too quick to send military operations into international affairs.

What is the balanced perspective that the author presents to the audience?

Activity #3

Now you can try it on your own. Using this same topic, follow each of the steps in the Rogerian argument.

  • Is it in the interest of the United States to maintain its international obligations? Should the U.S. be a police officer of global affairs? Why or why not?

1. Introduce the topic: How would you start a conversation with a friend about the United States role as the world police?

2. Acknowledge the opposing argument and provide context to the perspective: Much like the differences between Claim A and Claim B, what would someone say if they were opposing your position in this argument?

3. State your opinion and provide context to your position: What evidence can you include in your argument to support your claim about the United States role in world affairs?

4. Conclude your argument by mentioning the benefits to your side of the argument: Why should the opposition side with you?

Conclusion

Great work! You have put your historical analysis skills to the test by communicating in civil discourse and finding common ground with those who disagree with you. As a historian, it is important that you continue to use these skills in life to find a shared reality with those you may disagree with. Keep in mind that you are certainly bound to still disagree with others, even when arguing civilly, and sometimes, you will strongly disagree with others. That’s okay, too. Sometimes even Rogerian arguments won’t work if the other person holds blatantly disrespectful, dangerous, or discriminatory views. But even then, you can learn to diffuse the situation and not make it worse.

Link to Learning

This website provides some tips for diffusing heated arguments and holding peaceful discussions with others, even with polarizing views.

We all want to live in a world where there is a healthy environment for discussion, and where ideas can be heard and respected. Think about your own viewpoints and the experiences that have shaped them. Grant others the same courtesy that you would want to have yourself, and seek to understand.

As philospher Hannah Arendt once said, “However much we are affected by the things of the world, however deeply they may stir and stimulate us, they become human for us only when we can discuss them with our fellows.. . .We humanize what is going on in the world and in ourselves only by speaking of it, and in the course of speaking of it we learn to be human.”[1] As she says, discussion and debate are part of what make us human. As you reflect on the things you’ve learned in this history course, may your biggest takeaway be just that—we are all humans, imperfect, but learning and growing together.

Glossary

Rogerian argument: a form of argumentative reasoning that aims to establish a middle ground between parties with opposing viewpoints or goals.

  1. “Fostering Civil Discourse: How Do We Talk about Issues That Matter?” Accessed June 17, 2022. https://www.facinghistory.org/sites/default/files/publications/Fostering_Civil_Discourse_2020_3.pdf. ↵