Rogarian Rhetoric

     After reading the article "Rogerian Rhetoric"  by Douglas Brent, I have a much better understanding of how to use this tool (and what it is).  Rogerian Rhetoric to me seems like a much more passive way of arguing a topic.  Instead of coming out with your opinion and why the other opinion is wrong, it is more of acknowledging the opposing viewpoint and with truthful facts and analysis, say why you have your own viewpoint.  The author breaks it down into four things to be considered Rogerian Rhetoric.

1. Introducing the problem and the opposing viewpoint
2. Say when the opposing viewpoint may be valid or correct
3. Introducing your own viewpoint
4. How the opposing viewpoint would be made better by your own viewpoint.

     The author says that these are the four basic steps to writing using Regorian Rhetoric.  I sort of like this method of arguing.  It isn't very overpowering, but it disputes the opposing viewpoint in a calm mannered way which to me seems more mature and scholarly.  I am definitely going to attempt to include this in my Op-Ed piece.