Ok, let's say that I am trying to return an item to the store for a full refund, and the sales clerk is being unhelpful. In a Rogerian argument, I'm going to try to find the one thing that we can agree on (the common ground) before trying to push my side of the argument.
So, I might start with "This is a fantastic store and you have high-quality products." If I can get the sales clerk to agree with me on this common ground, then I have a better chance of having the clerk agree with me that I deserve to be able to return my item for a refund.
If I was using a middle ground style of argumentation, I would be trying to build a compromise. That compromise might look like this, "Ok, I see you have a no-refund policy, so might I return this item for store credit?"
In the Rogerian argument, I still want to get my way (a full refund), but in the middle ground, I'm willing to compromise (settle for store credit).
Reply to this post with 150 words
This year brings another chance for the average Washingtonian to voice his or her opinion on what direction the city will go. But a lot of people in this city still don’t vote for the mere reason, they believe their vote does not count. For those of you who don’t know Washington, DC does not have voting representation on a federal level. What if the taxpayers believe the current mayor is corrupt and has no moral principles? Or what if bills are passed by lawmakers who can’t vote? More than 17 percent of the District’s registered voters have selected “No Party” as their political affiliation. This decreases voting eligibility for general elections. A non-partisan system would make for the least political disruption. Councilman David Grosso has introduced a bill making all primaries open to all parties, and making them instant runoff voting that means people can rank their preferences in candidates( Nuckols, 1). It may be time to allow D.C. residents to register and fully participate in election outcomes without forcing affiliation with a political party. This system is currently being used successfully in other large cities.
I have never used this style of writing before and don’t believe I will in the future if I can help it. I may have used this method in my career, by explaining something beneficial or not beneficial to my patients.
BEN NUCKOLS; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/councilmember-to-push-instant-runoff-voting-in-dc/
Reply to this post with 150 words
I chose this topic and I stated that comprehensive sexual education and contraceptive distribution in schools are important. I backed this claim with statics from sources supporting the decline of adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in schools who utilized comprehensive sexual education and contraceptive distribution. School districts that implemented these programs had a decline in the total number of pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases over the past decade.
After looking at both ends of the topic; people for the programs and people against the programs, I believe it would be hard to find a middle ground. One thing that could make a difference is parents involvement with whether schools let the parents have the choice in the child attending the sexual education class. I would not have adjusted my claim because even though I understand the parents against the programs, I strongly agree with the programs.
I believe that the middle ground may take away from the full benefits of the child attending the program and making the contraceptives available. As far as additional resources it would be hard pressed to find one that would support the middle ground concept. Therefore I would stick to the Rogerian and Toulmin methods of argument.