Is Rogerian Argument the answer the world is looking for?

When we think of argument and persuasion, we generally gravitate to the classical win-lose conclusion. There has to be a winner and a loser. However, years ago, psychologist Carl R. Rogers advocated argument based on compromise aimed at consensus. As I was grading essays today from my "Science and Religion" class at the University of Toledo, the theme that kept surfacing is "Why can't we all just get along and accept and appreciate our differences?" Maybe our goal should not be to persuade anyone to "join the other side" but simply to open their minds to new possibilities and perspectives. For example, one American can hate Trump and present countless valid reasons for doing so; another may adore Trump and present equally strong arguments. Yet the two are still Americans and do not have to be enemies because of their different views. Counterargument and concession are two of the most neglected ideals in societal problem solving today. Simply understanding the "other side" can be enlightening and productive in getting to real solutions to any problem. Name calling and pointing fingers are not the answer! Keep that in mind the next time you are called upon to argue.