Typically, we think of winners and losers of arguments. Our tradition of argument goes back to classical Greece when speakers tried to sway fellow voters in the early democratic debates over policy. Building on this tradition of pro and con, our judicial system goes even further to emphasize the adversarial nature of many arguments.
Many arguments build toward consensus.
Another approach our authors don't describe is called Rogerian argument. Based on Carl Rogers' work in psychology, Rogerian argument begins by assuming that a willing writer can find middle or common ground with a willing reader. Instead of promoting the adversarial relationship that traditional or classical argument typically sets up between reader and writer, Rogerian argument assumes that if reader and writer can both find common ground about a problem, they are more likely to find a solution to that problem. Based on these assumptions, Rogerian argument develops along quite different lines than a traditional argument often does. In the introduction to a Rogerian argument, the writer presents the problem, typically pointing out how both writer and reader are affected by the problem.