Pub Date : 2024-07-10DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2024.2364378
R. Enos
{"title":"Cicero’s\u0000 maledicta\u0000 : the darker side of Cicero’s arguments","authors":"R. Enos","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2024.2364378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2024.2364378","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141661474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-12DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2024.2326782
Jos Hornikx
{"title":"The impact of normative argument quality variations on claim acceptance: empirical evidence from the US and the UK","authors":"Jos Hornikx","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2024.2326782","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2024.2326782","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140251468","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-18DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2023.2294223
Eta Krpanec, Aleksandra Huić
{"title":"Can high school competitive debating facilitate political participation? The role of political knowledge and identification with a politically active group","authors":"Eta Krpanec, Aleksandra Huić","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2023.2294223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2294223","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138995328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-15DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2023.2294236
Jens E. Kjeldsen, Marie Gelang
{"title":"Nonverbal communication as argumentation: the case of political television debates","authors":"Jens E. Kjeldsen, Marie Gelang","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2023.2294236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2294236","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138998644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-08DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2023.2275876
Mary Helen Clark
{"title":"The unnerved and unhoused: a rhetorical analysis of save Austin now’s campaign to disband unhoused individuals from Austin, Texas","authors":"Mary Helen Clark","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2023.2275876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2275876","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138587988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-03DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2023.2275903
Christopher M. Duerringer
AbstractThis essay analyzes contemporary American gun rhetoric with particular attention to location. Funded by a pragma-dialectic perspective, I examine conservative and progressive attempts to situate the national discussion about firearms and gun control legislation in urban locations (especially Chicago) and in suburbs (especially schoolhouses), respectively. I demonstrate that these location rhetorics function as strategic maneuvering, enabling both sets of discussants to move the conversation to issue sets that favor them and make their policy preferences seem more reasonable, even as they often prevent the public from responding to the bulk of actual gun violence. To begin, I develop a perspective on public argument based on pragma-dialectic argumentation theory. Next, I attend to conservative rhetoric that publicizes gun violence in large urban population centers, especially Chicago. Then, I turn to liberal gun rhetoric that centers attention on leafy suburbs where mass shootings often occur. In the final portion of this paper, I argue that both strategies disadvantage the public and forestall meaningful improvement on this important issue.Keywords: Strategic maneuveringgun controlgun rightspragma-dialecticsmass shootings Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 This is not an errant suggestion, by the way. Conservative politicians frequently refer to the federal deficit or the national debt as justification for eviscerating programs that serve the public. However, there is substantial evidence from Keynesian and post-Keynesian economists (see Galbraith Citation2010; Kelton Citation2020; Vickrey Citation1998; Wray et al. Citation2023) to suggest that the assumption that deficits or debts are bad is unfounded. When progressives entertain discussions about how they will “pay for” a proposed policy, they unnecessarily begin the discussion at a massive disadvantage.2 Conservatives argue that the Left’s failure to attend to so-called “Black-on-Black” crime is evidence of the Democratic party’s racist neglect of Black people and their concerns. And there is no shortage of examples of the Democratic party failing to live up to its promises to Black people. However, one ought to note that, because of the de facto segregation that characterizes much of the United States, most crime experienced by White folks is “White on White” crime as well. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (Citation2020) found that in 2019 (the last year for which data is available) 78.6% of all White homicide victims were killed by other White people. Moreover, 88% of all male homicide victims were murdered by other men. But such recognition does not serve racist ends and, therefore, finds little purchase in conservative politics. Nobody seems to be clamoring for increased policing in heavily White neighborhoods or in places where men tend to congregate.3 Although mass shootings have been recorded in the United States for mor
摘要本文分析了当代美国的枪支修辞，特别关注地点。在实用辩证法视角的资助下，我研究了保守派和进步派分别在城市(尤其是芝加哥)和郊区(尤其是校舍)对枪支和枪支管制立法进行全国性讨论的尝试。我证明了这些地点修辞作为战略操作的功能，使两组讨论者能够将谈话转移到有利于他们的问题上，并使他们的政策偏好看起来更合理，即使他们经常阻止公众对实际枪支暴力的大部分做出反应。首先，我发展了一个基于语用辩证法论证理论的公共论证视角。接下来，我关注保守派的言论，这些言论宣传了大城市人口中心，尤其是芝加哥的枪支暴力。然后，我转向自由派的枪支言论，把注意力集中在经常发生大规模枪击事件的绿树成荫的郊区。在本文的最后一部分，我认为这两种策略都不利于公众，并阻止了在这一重要问题上的有意义的改进。关键词:战略机动枪支管制枪支权利宣传辩证法大规模枪击事件披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。注1顺便说一下，这并不是一个错误的建议。保守派政客经常以联邦赤字或国家债务为借口，取消为公众服务的项目。然而，凯恩斯主义和后凯恩斯主义经济学家提供了大量证据(参见Galbraith Citation2010;Kelton Citation2020;维克瑞Citation1998;Wray等人。表明赤字或债务是坏的假设是没有根据的。当进步人士讨论他们将如何为一项拟议的政策“买单”时，他们不必要地以巨大的劣势开始讨论保守派认为，左派未能关注所谓的“黑人对黑人”犯罪，是民主党种族主义忽视黑人及其关切的证据。民主党没有兑现对黑人的承诺的例子也不少。然而，人们应该注意到，由于事实上的种族隔离是美国大部分地区的特征，白人所经历的大多数犯罪也是“白人对白人”犯罪。美国联邦调查局(Citation2020)发现，2019年(有数据可查的最后一年)，78.6%的白人凶杀案受害者被其他白人杀害。此外，88%的男性凶杀案受害者是被其他男性谋杀的。但这种承认并不符合种族主义的目的，因此在保守派政治中也找不到什么好处。似乎没有人要求在白人聚居的社区或男性聚集的地方增加警力尽管大规模枪击事件在美国已有一个多世纪的历史，但它们似乎并未被视为全国性问题。1966年，一名25岁的海军陆战队老兵在奥斯汀的德克萨斯大学主楼的塔楼上开枪，造成15人死亡，31人受伤，自上个世纪以来，报纸上再也没有发生过类似的大屠杀。约翰逊总统没有直接向美国公众发表讲话，但他通过新闻秘书发表了一份声明，其中写道:“发生的事情并非没有教训:我们必须紧急推动国会目前悬而未决的立法，以帮助防止错误的人获得枪支”(Troy Citation2018)。在20世纪70年代，大学校园是反战抗议者和反动警察之间血腥摊牌的场所。但这些事件并没有引发有关枪支管制的政治讨论。总的来说，里根总统和乔治·h·w·布什总统在执政期间很少提及大规模枪击事件，也许他们认为这是地方问题，应该由地方官员处理。作者简介:christopher M. Duerringer christopher M. Duerringer是位于长滩的加州州立大学传播研究系的教授。采用后马克思主义的方法，他的研究考察了经济、文化和政治不平等产生和维持的修辞过程。
{"title":"“Where were you shot?”: analyzing location rhetoric as strategic maneuvering in contemporary gun-control discourse","authors":"Christopher M. Duerringer","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2023.2275903","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2275903","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis essay analyzes contemporary American gun rhetoric with particular attention to location. Funded by a pragma-dialectic perspective, I examine conservative and progressive attempts to situate the national discussion about firearms and gun control legislation in urban locations (especially Chicago) and in suburbs (especially schoolhouses), respectively. I demonstrate that these location rhetorics function as strategic maneuvering, enabling both sets of discussants to move the conversation to issue sets that favor them and make their policy preferences seem more reasonable, even as they often prevent the public from responding to the bulk of actual gun violence. To begin, I develop a perspective on public argument based on pragma-dialectic argumentation theory. Next, I attend to conservative rhetoric that publicizes gun violence in large urban population centers, especially Chicago. Then, I turn to liberal gun rhetoric that centers attention on leafy suburbs where mass shootings often occur. In the final portion of this paper, I argue that both strategies disadvantage the public and forestall meaningful improvement on this important issue.Keywords: Strategic maneuveringgun controlgun rightspragma-dialecticsmass shootings Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 This is not an errant suggestion, by the way. Conservative politicians frequently refer to the federal deficit or the national debt as justification for eviscerating programs that serve the public. However, there is substantial evidence from Keynesian and post-Keynesian economists (see Galbraith Citation2010; Kelton Citation2020; Vickrey Citation1998; Wray et al. Citation2023) to suggest that the assumption that deficits or debts are bad is unfounded. When progressives entertain discussions about how they will “pay for” a proposed policy, they unnecessarily begin the discussion at a massive disadvantage.2 Conservatives argue that the Left’s failure to attend to so-called “Black-on-Black” crime is evidence of the Democratic party’s racist neglect of Black people and their concerns. And there is no shortage of examples of the Democratic party failing to live up to its promises to Black people. However, one ought to note that, because of the de facto segregation that characterizes much of the United States, most crime experienced by White folks is “White on White” crime as well. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (Citation2020) found that in 2019 (the last year for which data is available) 78.6% of all White homicide victims were killed by other White people. Moreover, 88% of all male homicide victims were murdered by other men. But such recognition does not serve racist ends and, therefore, finds little purchase in conservative politics. Nobody seems to be clamoring for increased policing in heavily White neighborhoods or in places where men tend to congregate.3 Although mass shootings have been recorded in the United States for mor","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135820379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-01DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2023.2275845
Chris Ackerley
AbstractThis article is a rhetorical analysis of an influential report on antimicrobial resistance in the context of national and global health policymaking. Through a textual-intertextual analysis, it examines how the report’s argumentation structure, grammatical moods, and use of strategic ambiguity direct multiple audiences to debate policy action, without becoming mired in manufactured scientific controversy about the existence or extent of the problem. The report successfully deploys a “beachhead” argumentation strategy by moving swiftly past arguments of scientific fact, definition, and quality, to focus public debate more effectively on matters of procedure. This analysis reveals promising strategies for future reports arguing on behalf of scientific consensus and seeking to stimulate policy action.Keywords: Rhetoric of scienceantimicrobial resistancepublic controversystasis theoryscience communication Disclosure statementThe author reports there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingFulbright Canada| Recipient: Christine Ackerley; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada | Recipient: Christine Ackerley.
{"title":"Effective argumentation for action in health policy: a case study of the UK’s review on antimicrobial resistance","authors":"Chris Ackerley","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2023.2275845","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2275845","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis article is a rhetorical analysis of an influential report on antimicrobial resistance in the context of national and global health policymaking. Through a textual-intertextual analysis, it examines how the report’s argumentation structure, grammatical moods, and use of strategic ambiguity direct multiple audiences to debate policy action, without becoming mired in manufactured scientific controversy about the existence or extent of the problem. The report successfully deploys a “beachhead” argumentation strategy by moving swiftly past arguments of scientific fact, definition, and quality, to focus public debate more effectively on matters of procedure. This analysis reveals promising strategies for future reports arguing on behalf of scientific consensus and seeking to stimulate policy action.Keywords: Rhetoric of scienceantimicrobial resistancepublic controversystasis theoryscience communication Disclosure statementThe author reports there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingFulbright Canada| Recipient: Christine Ackerley; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada | Recipient: Christine Ackerley.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135272250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-25DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2023.2250100
Rebecca J. Oliver
{"title":"The distilled enthymeme and visual argument: ideological interpretations after digital editing","authors":"Rebecca J. Oliver","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2023.2250100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2250100","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89195973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-19DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2157974
Adam Cody
{"title":"Dialectics, post-dialectics, and the democratic argument of Lysias XII","authors":"Adam Cody","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2157974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2157974","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75806553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2139087
Carly S. Woods
Abstract Speech and debate have been central in shaping traditions of argumentation in the United States. While much of debate history has focused on individual nation-states, attention to twentieth century intercollegiate debate tours offers one way for argumentation scholars to consider the transgeographic flows of argument exchange. This essay makes the case for thinking about the history of debate across borders. In order to contribute to this special issue’s focus on argumentation in the Americas, I offer the example of the University of Puerto Rico’s 1928 debate tour of the eastern United States, in which student debaters were able to ‘speak back’ to U.S. imperialism through embodied performances that compelled audiences to consider different perspectives on education, language, citizenship, and sovereignty.
{"title":"Revisiting twentieth-century argumentation through debate: The University of Puerto Rico’s 1928 tour of the United States","authors":"Carly S. Woods","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2139087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2139087","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Speech and debate have been central in shaping traditions of argumentation in the United States. While much of debate history has focused on individual nation-states, attention to twentieth century intercollegiate debate tours offers one way for argumentation scholars to consider the transgeographic flows of argument exchange. This essay makes the case for thinking about the history of debate across borders. In order to contribute to this special issue’s focus on argumentation in the Americas, I offer the example of the University of Puerto Rico’s 1928 debate tour of the eastern United States, in which student debaters were able to ‘speak back’ to U.S. imperialism through embodied performances that compelled audiences to consider different perspectives on education, language, citizenship, and sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89849114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：