Blog - Rogerian Activity

So, on Monday our professor had the entire class partake in an activity in order to introduce us to a new style of debate: Rogerian argumentation. The activity entailed the girls leaving the classroom and the guys remaining inside. After a few minutes or so, the girls were to return and each one was to sit down and speak individually with one of the guys. I can’t speak for the girls but the guys were instructed to ignore the girls completely the first time they spoke and then listen to them sincerely the second time they spoke. Honestly, the first time was difficult for me because my family raised me to always listen to those who speak to you. But, as instructed, I did everything possible to ignore Dominique (checked my cell phone, stared at the walls, played with my friend’s stapler, etc). I couldn’t help but shoot a few glances at Dominique and her eyes said it all: “I’m extremely angry and you’re being an asshole”. Eventually, she ceased speaking to me altogether. I felt terrible so I tried to persuade her to continue speaking but she refused adamantly. We both just sat there awkwardly until it was time to commence the second round where I could actually listen to Dominique and contribute to the conversation. It was so much more fun and easy than the first time around and, more importantly, her eyes weren’t full of anger directed towards me. So, what are my thoughts about Rogerian argumentation thus far? All in all, I think it can be an effective way to win an argument. My experience with Dominique, for instance, was the opposite of Rogerian argumentation and it resulted in anger, disappointment, and awkward silence. I feel that other methods of argumentation are much more likely to reproduce such negative sentiments as opposed to Rogerian since two of its main objectives are to avoid aggressive debating and to listen completely to the other side. Other Rogerian features I admire include gaining comprehension of the other side’s perspective, attempting to find common ground, and achieving a win-win situation. However, I’m not convinced just yet that Rogerian argumentation is the best way to win a debate. My main concern pertains to finding common ground and achieving win-win situations when debating extremely contentious issues such as abortion. I just feel that the passions and past experiences on both sides of that issue would preclude everyone from finding common ground and attaining a win-win situation. Anyways, I like Rogerian argumentation but I need to learn more about its features and its implementation before I espouse my complete support for it.