Article: Catharsis or Persuasion? Thoughts on Effective Writing

I do a lot of reading and contributing to various blogs in the blogosphere. Through those various reads and discussions I've made a few observations about the tendencies of professional and novice writers alike to appeal to the point of view of an already-receptive audience and spend little time addressing the counter-argument's often valid, or at least persuasive points. To have an argument, there must be at least two sides and each side, one would expect, would feel equally strong in the validity of their position. What I find that tends to happen is that rather than attempting to persuade, many writers tend to engage in hyperbole and ad homonym screeds targeted only to a preexisting, sympathetic audience. The obvious question is: "What good does that do?"
The whole point of discourse is to share differing thoughts and opinions, attempt to persuade with a progression of logic and appeal to the other's intellect. Its the difference between a dialogue and a middle-school pep-rally. If one truly feels he is engaging with idiots, then it would seem the only intelligent move is disengagement lest your time be wasted. If you honestly believe that your position is so far superior to the opposition's then it should be a very simple matter to convince them of their folly. But that is rarely the case is it? The fact is that even self-described intellectuals these days can't help but demonize and belittle their detractors in long-winded screeds and diatribes that do little if any actual persuading.
Most of the stuff I read these days seems more like catharsis than rhetoric. And that is unfortunate, because it surrenders perhaps the most effective weapon in a writers arsenal. Conceding the legitimate points of one’s dissenters not only allows the writer to address flaws in their logic, but the acknowledgement of differing opinions is an effective means of demonstrating the thoroughness of the writer’s own thought processes. When writing a persuasive piece, there is no opportunity for questions posed by the reader to be addressed. The writer’s objective is best served anticipating the more learned queries that might be posed by a prospective reader and addressing them within the text. Obviously, not every question can be properly answered, but the more pivotal points can be reinforced substantially by this rhetorical method.What is fascinating is the conspicuous lack of use of these devices in current methods of mass-persuasion, such as the newspaper op-eds and the pernicious diatribes of the perennial punditry. There appears to be a general unwillingness to acknowledge the validity of the counter-argument, possibly stemming from a baseless fear of detracting from the writer/speaker’s own point. However, used properly, it should impress upon the audience the depth of consideration employed in the message they are interpreting. Furthermore, since the purpose of writing/speaking is ostensibly to persuade, and one cannot persuade without being heard, this tactic can be tremendously effective in communicating a message of understanding and respect for the opposing viewpoint. In other words, it can also be a useful tool to reach out to the minds of the opposition and acknowledge their validity and relevance. A gesture of understanding that each side simply desires the best possible outcome, but that you respectfully feel your approach to be more sound. Its not just simply civil, but extremely effective.