The "Should We Ban Plastic Bags?" Rogerian Argument
Issue: Should plastic bags be banned?
Traditional Argument:
* Pro-ban: Plastic bags pollute the environment, harm wildlife, and contribute to climate change. Therefore, they should be banned.
* Anti-ban: Plastic bags are convenient and affordable. Banning them would harm businesses and inconvenience consumers.
Rogerian Argument:
1. Acknowledgement of Opposing View:
* Start with the "common ground": Both sides agree that plastic pollution is a problem.
* Understand the other side's concerns: It's understandable that people value convenience and affordability.
* Emphasize shared values: Both sides want a clean environment and affordable options.
2. Presentation of Your View:
* Focus on the shared goal: We can achieve a cleaner environment while ensuring affordable options.
* Present your solution: A phased implementation of reusable bags, with incentives for businesses and consumers, would be a gradual and effective approach.
* Highlight benefits for both sides: This solution reduces pollution, promotes sustainability, and offers a more affordable alternative in the long run.
3. Common Ground and Solution:
* Find a compromise: A ban on single-use plastic bags can be implemented gradually, allowing businesses and consumers to adapt.
* Offer alternatives: Reusable bags can be provided or offered at a discounted price.
* Emphasize the positive impact: This solution reduces pollution, encourages sustainable practices, and ultimately benefits everyone.
Conclusion:
* Restate the shared goal: A clean environment and affordable options are achievable through a collaborative approach.
* Call for action: By embracing a gradual transition to reusable bags, we can create a more sustainable future for everyone.
By focusing on common ground and offering a solution that benefits both sides, the Rogerian argument seeks to build consensus and find a solution that is both effective and acceptable to all parties involved.