Since all language is in some sense argumentative, the purposes of argument vary widely. For many years, however, traditional notions of argument tended to highlight one purpose—winning. Although winning is still one important purpose of argument, studies of the argument strategies of people from groups historically excluded from public debate—including women and people of color—have demonstrated that it is by no means the only purpose. Researchers Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin describe an invitational argument whose purpose is to invite others to join in mutual exploration based on careful listening and respect. In addition, Rogerian argument (named after psychologist Carl Rogers) seeks to find common ground and establish trust among those who disagree about issues. Writers who take either of these approaches try to see where the other person is coming from, looking for “both/and” or “win/win” solutions when possible. You will probably find that your own arguments will serve several different purposes. For instance, if you are trying to decide whether to major in business or in chemistry, you may want to consider, or “argue,” all sides of the issue. Your purpose is hardly to win out over someone else; instead, it is to understand your choices in order to make a wise decision.

Arguing to win

The most traditional purpose of academic argument, arguing to win, is used in campus debating societies, in political debates, in trials, and often in business. The writer or speaker aims to present a position that prevails over or defeats the positions of others. Presidential debates and trials, for example, focus most often not on changing the opponent’s mind but on defeating him or her in order to appeal to someone else—the voting public, the judge, and so on.

Arguing to convince

More often than not, out-and-out defeat of another is not only unrealistic but also undesirable. Rather, the goal is to convince other persons that they should change their minds about an issue. A writer must provide reasons so compelling that the audience willingly agrees with the writer’s conclusion. Such is the goal of advocates of assisted suicide: they well know that they cannot realistically hope to defeat or conquer those who oppose such acts. Rather, they understand that they must provide reasons compelling enough to change people’s minds.

Arguing to understand

Often, a writer must enter into conversation with others and collaborate in seeking the best possible understanding of a problem, exploring all possible approaches and choosing the best alternative. The Rogerian and invitational forms of argument both call for understanding as a major goal of arguing. Argument to understand does not seek to conquer or control others or even to convince them. Your purpose in many situations—from trying to decide which job to pursue to exploring with your family the best way to care for an elderly relative—will be to share information and perspectives in order to make informed political, professional, and personal choices.

Arguing to change yourself

Sometimes you will find yourself arguing primarily with yourself, and those arguments often take the form of intense meditations on a theme, or even of prayer. In such cases, you may be hoping to transform something in yourself or to reach peace of mind on a troubling subject. If you know a familiar mantra or prayer, for example, think of what it “argues” for and how it uses quiet meditation to help achieve that goal.