Antagonistic and Non-antagonistic Advocacy [Argument]

Antagonistic=Hostile=Oppositional=Polemic="win/lose" Non-antagonistic=Cooperative="win/win"

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 of rhetor and allies.
• Antagonism may start out as rhetorical but often ends up very material: In antagonistic argumentation, the rhetor tries to accuse, discredit, indict, convict, defeat, eliminate or sometimes even kill the opponent.

  Antagonistic rhetoric is like a firearm: Never point it at someone unless you intend to destroy her or him.

  Antagonism ultimately destroys.

  ---

  ---

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.

The rhetor's task is to correctly determine when each form of rhetoric is appropriate, and when it is not.