Pub Date : 2021-07-08DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1942602
David Bailey
Abstract In this essay I offer a reconsideration of President George H.W. Bush’s rhetorical campaign for the Gulf War. I argue that Bush’s rhetoric was an instance of simulated atonement—a variant of the atonement rhetorical form. Bush’s use of this form enabled him to both sanitize and ennoble the violence of the war as self-redemptive corrective action for the public memory traumas of the Vietnam era. Bush yawed between dissociation and analogy—first entirely dissociating Vietnam from the Gulf War and later embracing the Gulf War as analogical redemption for Vietnam. I also briefly consider an example of genuine atonement offered by one of President Bush’s successors.
{"title":"Charitable violence: George HW Bush and simulated atonement for Vietnam","authors":"David Bailey","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1942602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1942602","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this essay I offer a reconsideration of President George H.W. Bush’s rhetorical campaign for the Gulf War. I argue that Bush’s rhetoric was an instance of simulated atonement—a variant of the atonement rhetorical form. Bush’s use of this form enabled him to both sanitize and ennoble the violence of the war as self-redemptive corrective action for the public memory traumas of the Vietnam era. Bush yawed between dissociation and analogy—first entirely dissociating Vietnam from the Gulf War and later embracing the Gulf War as analogical redemption for Vietnam. I also briefly consider an example of genuine atonement offered by one of President Bush’s successors.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"36 1","pages":"22 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87422420","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 : 2021-07-08DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535
R. C. Rowland
Abstract After what was widely perceived to be a disastrous first debate in 2020, the second debate was viewed as a vast improvement, a shift that fulfilled the pedagogical functions of presidential debates for educating the public. A close analysis of the arguments in the two debates, however, does not support this judgment. Rather, it indicates that the 2020 presidential debates functioned more as political theater than they did as public argument. A change in format could shift the incentives facing the candidates, encouraging them to build strong arguments in favor of their position.
{"title":"The 2020 presidential debates: reasoned argument or political theater","authors":"R. C. Rowland","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After what was widely perceived to be a disastrous first debate in 2020, the second debate was viewed as a vast improvement, a shift that fulfilled the pedagogical functions of presidential debates for educating the public. A close analysis of the arguments in the two debates, however, does not support this judgment. Rather, it indicates that the 2020 presidential debates functioned more as political theater than they did as public argument. A change in format could shift the incentives facing the candidates, encouraging them to build strong arguments in favor of their position.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"14 1","pages":"218 - 235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81934762","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 : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1935669
Yun Xie
{"title":"Is there a missing on-balance premise in conductive argument?","authors":"Yun Xie","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1935669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1935669","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"33 7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80235905","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 : 2021-06-21DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786
K. Maddux
Abstract Televised deliberation has been celebrated for its accessibility and derided for its tendency toward spectacle. Deliberative theorists and practitioners seek ways to make deliberation more inclusive because widespread participation facilitates deliberative legitimacy. This analysis operates between these two challenges, to consider how the daytime television show The View, drawing upon the televisual logics of spectacle and intimacy, nonetheless offers a public pedagogy of deliberation that provides resources for facilitating inclusive deliberation. I argue that the show models deliberators overcoming typical barriers to deliberation, such as disagreement and discomfort, with five deliberative habits: everyday talk, civility, agreement, friendship, and humor.
{"title":"Viewing deliberation: daytime television’s public pedagogy of inclusion","authors":"K. Maddux","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Televised deliberation has been celebrated for its accessibility and derided for its tendency toward spectacle. Deliberative theorists and practitioners seek ways to make deliberation more inclusive because widespread participation facilitates deliberative legitimacy. This analysis operates between these two challenges, to consider how the daytime television show The View, drawing upon the televisual logics of spectacle and intimacy, nonetheless offers a public pedagogy of deliberation that provides resources for facilitating inclusive deliberation. I argue that the show models deliberators overcoming typical barriers to deliberation, such as disagreement and discomfort, with five deliberative habits: everyday talk, civility, agreement, friendship, and humor.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"55 1","pages":"1 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79835302","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 : 2021-06-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1933343
Alexander Hiland
{"title":"Resolved: debate can revolutionize education and help save our democracy","authors":"Alexander Hiland","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1933343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1933343","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"2 1","pages":"276 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85122947","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 : 2021-06-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1933344
Michael J. Hoppmann
{"title":"The enthymeme: syllogism, reasoning and narrative in ancient rhetoric","authors":"Michael J. Hoppmann","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1933344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1933344","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"6 1","pages":"273 - 275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75131641","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 : 2021-04-19DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1910178
Theon E. Hill
{"title":"Peculiar rhetoric: slavery, freedom, and the african colonization movement","authors":"Theon E. Hill","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1910178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1910178","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"29 1","pages":"270 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86158154","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 : 2021-03-29DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1905941
J. Johnson
{"title":"The gifting logos: expertise in the digital commons","authors":"J. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1905941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1905941","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"30 1","pages":"267 - 269"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86664801","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 : 2021-03-14DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1897274
William T. Howe, Ioana A. Cionea
Abstract In this original research study, we examined how participating in debate is associated with communication competence (CC), communication apprehension (CA), and argumentativeness (ARG). A sample of participants (N = 201) from around the globe filled out an online survey where they reported demographic information (including debate experience) and completed scales measuring CC, CA, and ARG. Differences between these variables were then examined based on categories such as debaters and non-debaters, US and non-US residency, men and women. Results revealed participants with debate experience scored systematically different than those with no debate experience, even when controlling for participants’ sex and residency geographic region. Previously established relationships between CC, CA, and ARG were also supported. Additionally, significant differences were noted between US participants and non-US participants for several variables. No significant differences were found between men and women; however, an interaction effect between debate participation and sex was found. These results, including their practical implications, are discussed in the context of communication competence and apprehension research as well as argumentation literature.
{"title":"Exploring the associations between debate participation, communication competence, communication apprehension, and argumentativeness with a global sample","authors":"William T. Howe, Ioana A. Cionea","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1897274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1897274","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this original research study, we examined how participating in debate is associated with communication competence (CC), communication apprehension (CA), and argumentativeness (ARG). A sample of participants (N = 201) from around the globe filled out an online survey where they reported demographic information (including debate experience) and completed scales measuring CC, CA, and ARG. Differences between these variables were then examined based on categories such as debaters and non-debaters, US and non-US residency, men and women. Results revealed participants with debate experience scored systematically different than those with no debate experience, even when controlling for participants’ sex and residency geographic region. Previously established relationships between CC, CA, and ARG were also supported. Additionally, significant differences were noted between US participants and non-US participants for several variables. No significant differences were found between men and women; however, an interaction effect between debate participation and sex was found. These results, including their practical implications, are discussed in the context of communication competence and apprehension research as well as argumentation literature.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"94 1","pages":"103 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77271704","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 : 2021-03-10DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1897275
John Banister
Abstract The Supreme Court of the United States often finds itself at the center of political controversies due to the increased judicialization of value and policy matters. These controversies threaten the Court’s legitimacy, inducing the justices to defend their independence to perform the institution’s raison d’être. This dilemma is exemplified in legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act after the U.S. Congress, in 2018, eliminated the tax penalty that was essential to the Court’s rationale for upholding the mandate in a prior case. By interrogating the dissociative reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts’ controlling opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), I argue that the opinion and its uptake in subsequent challenges epitomize the discontents of judicial supremacy and the ultimate inconstancy of judicially-driven political change. Evaluation of this case contributes to understanding of the practices of legal argumentation and theories of dissociation.
随着价值和政策问题司法化程度的提高，美国最高法院经常处于政治争议的中心。这些争议威胁到最高法院的合法性，促使法官们捍卫自己的独立性，以履行该机构成立être的理由。这一困境在《平价医疗法案》(Affordable Care Act)面临的法律挑战中得到了体现。2018年，美国国会取消了税收罚款，而税收罚款对法院在之前的一个案件中维持强制医保的理由至关重要。通过对首席大法官罗伯茨在“全国独立企业联合会诉西贝利厄斯案”(National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012)中提出的控制意见的解耦推理，我认为，该意见及其在随后的挑战中被采纳，集中体现了对司法至上的不满，以及司法驱动的政治变革的最终不稳定性。对此案的评价有助于理解法律论证的实践和分离理论。
{"title":"The dissociations of John Roberts: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and the discontents of judicial supremacy","authors":"John Banister","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1897275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1897275","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Supreme Court of the United States often finds itself at the center of political controversies due to the increased judicialization of value and policy matters. These controversies threaten the Court’s legitimacy, inducing the justices to defend their independence to perform the institution’s raison d’être. This dilemma is exemplified in legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act after the U.S. Congress, in 2018, eliminated the tax penalty that was essential to the Court’s rationale for upholding the mandate in a prior case. By interrogating the dissociative reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts’ controlling opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), I argue that the opinion and its uptake in subsequent challenges epitomize the discontents of judicial supremacy and the ultimate inconstancy of judicially-driven political change. Evaluation of this case contributes to understanding of the practices of legal argumentation and theories of dissociation.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"1 1","pages":"123 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84094162","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：