Antagonistic and Non-antagonistic Argumentation

There is an basic difference between antagonistic and non-antagonistic argumentation: The goals of antagonistic argumentation are usually:

• promoting, increasing, and taking advantage of disunity among opponents and their allies,
• seeking verbal and material dominance, pushing opponents out of the way,
• bringing about psychological, verbal and physical confusion and demobilization of opponent forces,
• causing the disruption, neutralization and ultimate elimination and disbanding of opponent forces,
• creating favorable conditions for ultimate total material victory for yourself and allies.
• Antagonism may start out as rhetorical but often ends up very material: In antagonistic argumentation, you try to  accuse, discredit, indict, convict, impeach, defeat, eliminate or sometimes even kill the opponent.

  Antagonistic argumentation is a loaded weapon. Never point it at someone unless you intend to destroy them!

  ---

Non-antagonistic differences are sometimes material, but are always most appropriately settled by discursive (rhetorical) means:

• seeking unity,
• practicing respect and mutual support,
• understanding, consciousness-raising and compassion,
• seeking peace and reconciliation,
• democracy,
• free and open discussion and
• finding ways of working together toward the common goal.

Cooperation builds.

Your task as a writer  is to correctly determine when each form of argument  is appropriate, and when it is not.

O.W. 10/05 rev 2/10

For educational purposes only.