Confrontation, or aggressive verbal behavior, has been defended as a rhetorical tactic by some communication theorists on five bases: biological, psychological, sociological, rhetorical, and intellectual. Proponents of "rhetorical sensitivity," however, differ from those who would accept confrontation uncritically. Confrontation is not an inevitable requirement for the establishment and maintenance of effective interpersonal or group relationships and exchange of ideas. On the other hand, automatic agreement that precludes consideration of alternative courses of action should be avoided. There can be an "Aristotelian mean" between foolish consensus seeking at one extreme and controversy for the sake of controversy at the other. Rhetorically, the use of confrontation seems to be advisable only when other approaches have failed. Philosophically, confrontational exchanges seem to be appropriate only when the intellectual and psychological benefits outweigh the potential costs or damages to interpersonal relationships. (RN)