ru-vid.com?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbW55MGFtQ3F3UXdOeDhERlpQdmVDNGtib3Itd3xBQ3Jtc0trUTJRWlQ3NFFqUGFUYVRKQXRRRHE2ZVJFa3cwVTJieUZKai14WlUwVDZ4VExmZGlLU3I4aXpKaDc3dWw3Nmplc0NXamxOZnBFZ2pFVFJEY29PSzg4NkV0WG1rdEJzT0p2MUpQcVd0YTFvaHhaYnpFZw&q=https%3A%2F%2Fowl.excelsior.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2018%2F05%2FRogerianArgumentAPA7thEdition.pdf&html_redirect=1 Here it is. It was in the description.
one thing I thought about was arguments between 2 diametrically opposed sides where one (or both) of the sides ideologies explicitly devalues the opinions of the other (like the KKK vs. African Americans or westburough baptist church members vs. the LGBTQ+) in that situation would a rogerian argument still be effective? or is there another way to work through these high difficulty level debates? (P.S. if Mr. Bradford doesn't respond that's fine, I'm not in your class at all but got this assigned for my current class)
Great question. The Rogerian style works well only if you have genuine respect for the opposing side(s)... With the examples you've given (such as the KKK), I would take the Classic Approach. It might not win over extremists (what does?) but it could help ensure fence-sitters don't fall for the extremists' propaganda.
