The adversarial and consensual styles of argument are both ways of reaching to a decision regarding certain problems. Therefore, these are both ways of problem solving. However, these two styles are very different. In use of these styles, people exhibit different approaches to the problems at hand. According to Wood (2008), the consensual style is characterized by cooperation. This means that the focus is to have the parties involved come to a consensus. However, adversarial arguments are characterized by competition
The focus here is for one of the parties to become a winner. Further, unlike in the consensual argument where each person’s opinions are taken into consideration by the arguing parties, people who use the adversarial argument type favor their own opinions. This then means that such people will enjoy conflicts since different people have different ways of thinking.Listening is very prominent in a consensual argument. This then creates a feeling that the argument will turn out positively.
People who engage in consensual arguments think more about the other party. However, this is not the case with the adversarial style of argument. Each party will read the argument of the other in a consensual argument thus making it more effective. However, adversarial arguments will most likely result in elevation of aggression (Wood, 2008). Confrontations are very evident in adversarial arguments. However, in consensual arguments the parties will avoid the possibilities of having heated arguments.
This further shows that the parties do not become emotional unlike in the adversarial style of argument. People who engage in adversarial arguments believe that their side of the argument is the truth. On the other hand, in consensual arguments, the parties know that any side can be agreed to be the truth. Thus, the consensual style of argument is a better way of managing conflicts and solving problems.
Reference
Wood, N.V. (2008). Perspectives on Argument. 6th Ed. USA: Prentice Hall publishers.
