Unlike the Toulmin and Rogerian methods where one side is argued over another, the middle ground argument mediates between two sides of an issue, finding a â€˜middle groundâ€™ solution.
In other words, this argumentative position seeks to forward a compromise solution between two positions.
For this discussion, choose an issue that you wrote about previously in this course (either your Toulmin or Rogerian essay). Let the class know your previous claim and briefly how you proved this claim in your essay. After this brief review discussion, discuss how you would have approached this particular topic if you were to write a middle ground argument, instead of a Toulmin or Rogerian argument. Would you have adjusted your claim? If so, what sort of adjustment would you need? Would you have to find additional sources about your topic in order to prove this new claim? Is a middle ground solution a more practical solution to your chosen issue?