Where does the power lie?

Catherine Lamb, Phyllis Lassner, and Kevin Michael DeLuca present some interesting arguments about how power relates to argument. I found these articles particularly helpful because they led me to question (for the first time) my assumption that everyone feels welcome and empowered to engage in traditional methods of argument. They also led me to question (yet again) the effectiveness of arguing as a combatant out to defeat an opponent, making a convincing argument comparable to a conquest. Of course, as Lamb suggests, the ideal conversation of cooperation (rather than confrontation and conflict) leads to a solution that satisfies everyone. The problem of the day seems to be how people can have a conversation with all parties cooperating when trust breaks down and power is unevenly distributed.
Before I read Lassner’s article, I was confident that the Rogerian method could create something close to this ideal conversation (and I still think that Rogerian argument has potential). Now, I have come to admire Lassner for assuming that a participant in an argument must have a passionate, personal connection to his or her position. This attitude seems to make restating an opposing argument difficult, if not impossible. Yet, Lassner, like Carl Rogers, does acknowledge the participants in an argument need to reach some kind of common ground. For her, ‘common ground’ means a shared humanity, rather than a shared understanding of the opposing argument (as Rogers understands it). I don’t see why one cannot do both. I agree with Lassner that restating an opposing argument can be scary, especially when one has such a strong, personal connection to one’s position. But I do not understand how a group can cooperate without understanding all positions. Perhaps, this understanding cannot come until trust is already established, rather than as a means of establishing trust. Perhaps, the trust is established within a group in conversation by acknowledging shared humanity.