While there was no violence at the Berkeley event, the sorts of arguments that were taking place were by no means examples of Rogerian argumentation as discussed in Chapter 7. Is it possible to engage...

While there was no violence at the Berkeley event, the sorts of arguments that were taking place were by no means examples of Rogerian argumentation as discussed in Chapter 7. Is it possible to engage in Rogerian argumentation about topics as heated as those at stake in the debates at Berkeley? Must both sides agree to use Rogerian argumentation? Why or why not? What might a Rogerian argument look like in this case if you contend that form of argumentation is possible here?