Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Rogerian Argument
disproving opposing views Meant to persuade audience
to accept your position Has an "offensive" structure Introduction
Announces thesis/claim Classical Structure Background
Provides important/relevant background information
Introduces circumstances surrounding/causing issue
Begins to give context by connecting issue and overall argument Support/Proof
Creates logical connections, from strongest to weakest
Provides evidence/backing for each claim
Transitions between ideas and connects them to each other and overall thesis/claim
Largest part of the argument Rebuttal/Refutation
Discusses opposing position, including shared viewpoints
Restates thesis/claim in connection to strongest points
Ends strong Not always the best way to deal with an issue,
especially on controversial issues or conflicts
where each side is "set" in their opinion I'm RIGHT, you're WRONG! 1902-1987 Carl Rogers Psychotherapist and communication theorist Who is Carl Rogers? Recognized that people establish barriers and grow more rigid in their beliefs when threatened Emphasized the need "to see the expressed idea and attitude from the other person's point of view" or, in other words, to develop "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another"
dictionary.com EMPATHY Typical Rogerian Format Introduction
Objective description of important context and what is at stake
Brief, objective description of both/all opposing positions
Create a shared "safe" space for you and your opposition Objective Analysis of Opponent's Views
Specific details of opposition, emphasizing plausible aspects of their position or contexts in which their position is most valid
Objective analysis on opposing position and subtopics Presentation of Your Position
Specific details of your position and contexts in which they are valid
Present evidence and analysis of any relevant subtopics Analysis / Common Ground
Commonalities and common ground presented in both positions
Appeal to a common set of values and a desire of both parties to solve the problem Solution / Compromise
Crafted solution that borrows the best from both positions and negotiates a compromise using the strongest points in both Rogerian in Context Not Just Re-Arrangement Benefits of a Rogerian Method Avoids adversarial approach
Creates credibility by showing true knowledge about and concern for the opposition
Allows for understanding of HOW another person can have views different from your own
Puts research in context Let's Find a Shared Solution Example:
Batman vs Superman Classical vs Rogerian Application Activity Step 1: In your writing notebook, create a list of controversial topics / areas where many people are divided in opinion ("should..." questions are a good start; include your opinion) Step 2: Pair up and find one item on either list that the two of you disagree on Step 3: One person shares why they think the way they do, then the other person tries to summarize it in a statement back to them ("What I heard you say was [summary]. Is that right?"). Clarify or restate your point of view until the other person can give you a summary you feel adequately represents your opinion and reasons for it. Step 4: Switch roles, repeat Step 3 Step 5: Attempt to find areas of common ground or shared aspects of your opinions