Demonstrates the basics of Carl Rogers' theory of cooperative argumentation, contrasting classical Ciceronian argument with an example from Barack Obama's 2008 nomination acceptance speech
As second language speaker is really hard to understand the real context of both arguments. After this terrific explanation I will say that as a nation if every one applies Rogerian's principles the world will be join by bridges and open doors with mutual understanding between each others.
I was an unhappy attorney when I came across Rogers in the late 1960's. Changed my life and my career. i went back to school and became a therapist--some Rogers, some Perls, and many others influenced me. Retired a few years ago. Even though my work went through may transformations Rogers and Perls remained strong influences. IIn the last 10 years of my professional life Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg and their Solution Focused Therapy were most influential. Seee them on you-tube
Wonderful explanation of Rogerian argument and how it differs from the conventional arguments. Obama's speech was a perfect example as it sought to bring the two opposing fractions into a unified goal. Unfortunately he did not live up to the rhetoric IMHO and has divided more than unified this country.
Nice work. I also will be directing students for your video. Maybe include some quick pictures of the people you mention. I am not commenting on your correctness, but your explanation of Rogers' work will help my freshmen understand. Thanks man. Incidentally, no one uses "I" in speeches more than Barack Obama.
Compare the views of Roger Fisher: "Getting to Yes;" and especially the "workbook," but even more, "Beyond Machiavelli," which he argues, is more effective than power politics. Find more of this latter point in his: "Coping with International Conflict and his earlier pair "International Conflict for Beginners" and "Dear Israelis, Dear Arabs." One more: "Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate." (I blog on these; google: "Listen, Learn, Leverage, Lead" etc.)
Actually, any good argument has a balance of logos, ethos (essentially character and has to do with credibility), and pathos (emotions). Relying on logos alone overwhelms the audience with too much logic, and won't be received well. Just so you know :)
My proposed solution for gay marriage is to leave 'marriage' between a man & woman but introduce 'civil union' (or some other name). A civil union would, by law, would be afforded the exact same legal pros & cons of 'traditional' marriage and it would be illegal to distinguish the two on documents. All laws referring to one refer to both. Anyone think that's a bad idea? I'm totally for gay equality, but I think the objections to gay marriage are all dumb or rhetorical distractions.
How about I pay you be becoming a more informed citizen and thus raising the average competency of society, thereby indirectly raising your and everyone else's average standard of living?
As second language speaker is really hard to understand the real context of both arguments. After this terrific explanation I will say that as a nation if every one applies Rogerian's principles the world will be join by bridges and open doors with mutual understanding between each others.
Thank you, this is such a clear explanation!!
This was VERY helpful. Great work.
I was an unhappy attorney when I came across Rogers in the late 1960's. Changed my life and my career. i went back to school and became a therapist--some Rogers, some Perls, and many others influenced me. Retired a few years ago. Even though my work went through may transformations Rogers and Perls remained strong influences. IIn the last 10 years of my professional life Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg and their Solution Focused Therapy were most influential. Seee them on you-tube
This helped my paper so much! thank you
Wonderful explanation of Rogerian argument and how it differs from the conventional arguments. Obama's speech was a perfect example as it sought to bring the two opposing fractions into a unified goal. Unfortunately he did not live up to the rhetoric IMHO and has divided more than unified this country.
Thanks for this video :) Really helpful!
Nice work. I also will be directing students for your video. Maybe include some quick pictures of the people you mention. I am not commenting on your correctness, but your explanation of Rogers' work will help my freshmen understand. Thanks man. Incidentally, no one uses "I" in speeches more than Barack Obama.
perfect!
thankyou so much
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you refer me to some videos or essays that explains?
Thanks my Final English 103 tomorrow
Compare the views of Roger Fisher: "Getting to Yes;" and especially the "workbook," but even more, "Beyond Machiavelli," which he argues, is more effective than power politics. Find more of this latter point in his: "Coping with International Conflict and his earlier pair "International Conflict for Beginners" and "Dear Israelis, Dear Arabs." One more: "Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate." (I blog on these; google: "Listen, Learn, Leverage, Lead" etc.)
nice....
Actually, any good argument has a balance of logos, ethos (essentially character and has to do with credibility), and pathos (emotions). Relying on logos alone overwhelms the audience with too much logic, and won't be received well. Just so you know :)
My proposed solution for gay marriage is to leave 'marriage' between a man & woman but introduce 'civil union' (or some other name).
A civil union would, by law, would be afforded the exact same legal pros & cons of 'traditional' marriage and it would be illegal to distinguish the two on documents. All laws referring to one refer to both.
Anyone think that's a bad idea? I'm totally for gay equality, but I think the objections to gay marriage are all dumb or rhetorical distractions.
How about I pay you be becoming a more informed citizen and thus raising the average competency of society, thereby indirectly raising your and everyone else's average standard of living?