Do you think that this former CIA agent is describing a useful purposing of Rogerian argumentation?

Do you think that this former CIA agent is describing a useful purposing of Rogerian argumentation?

Only needs to be one or two paragraphs long

As the chart below indicates, a Rogerian argument does not emphasize an “I win you lose” outcome, but rather it emphasizes a win-win result. Pathos and ethos are the major players in Rogerian arguments or as Hughes and Rollins suggest more aptly Rogerian “discussions”, rather than logos and strict logic that take place in Aristotelian arguments.

TRADITIONAL AND ROGERIAN ARGUMENT
	TRADITIONAL ARGUMENT	ROGERIAN ARGUMENT
Basic Strategy	Writer states the claim and gives reasons to prove it. Writer refutes the opponent by showing what is wrong or invalid.	Writer states the opponent’s claim to demonstrate understanding and shows how it is valid.
Ethos	Writer establishes own character by demonstrating competence, fairmindedness, and goodwill.	Writer builds opponent’s and enhances own character through empathy.
Logos	Writer appeals to reason to establish a claim and refute the opponent’s claim.	Writer proceeds in an explanatory fashion to analyze the conditions under which the position of either side is valid.
Pathos	Writer arouses emotions with evocative language to strengthen the claim.	Writer uses descriptive, dispassionate language to cool emotions on both sides.
Goal	Writer seeks to change opponent’s mind and thereby win the argument.	Writer creates cooperation, the possibility that both sides might change, and a mutually advantageous outcome.
Use of argumentative techniques	Writer draws on the conventional structures and techniques.	Writer throws out conventional structures and techniques because they may be threatening and focuses instead on connecting empathetically

Do you think that this former CIA agent is describing a useful purposing of Rogerian argumentation? Why or why not? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqo1IR6_KtI