Rogerian argument

In Consideration of Universal Basic Income – Or, May the Hydra Be Tamed?

In Consideration of Universal Basic Income – Or, May the Hydra Be Tamed?

Often when discussing controversial issues the most popular move is to “straw man” a person’s argument—to devise a caricature of what the opposition believes, tear it down, and pretend that one has therefore won the argument. A Rogerian argument requires one to “steel man” the opposition, to state their case in such a way that the opposition may believe that the writer not only understands their position, but that demonstrates that the writer may pose a counterargument from an informed and thus authoritative position.

The very spirit of the Rogerian argument is comparable to that of Hegelian dialectics: truth is found in between dialectic and anti-dialectic, between argument and counter-argument—through dialogue—not on any particular “side”. I welcome feedback and further information, as this is only a cursory survey of the topic, but I ask that the reader make no mistake in reading this piece: the following does not necessarily reflect my opinion or beliefs on the topic, only an exercise in clear, honest, and fair argumentation.