Pub Date : 2021-03-10DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1897327
Katharina Stevens
Abstract In this paper I argue for a pro tanto moral duty to be charitable in argument. Further, I argue that the amount of charitable effort required varies depending on the type of dialogue arguers are engaged in. In non-institutionalized contexts, arguers have influence over the type of dialogue that will be adopted. Arguers are therefore responsible with respect to charity on two levels: First, they need to take reasons for charity into account when determining the dialogue-type. Second, they need to invest the amount of effort towards charity required by the dialogue-type.
{"title":"Charity for moral reasons? – A defense of the principle of charity in argumentation","authors":"Katharina Stevens","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1897327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1897327","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper I argue for a pro tanto moral duty to be charitable in argument. Further, I argue that the amount of charitable effort required varies depending on the type of dialogue arguers are engaged in. In non-institutionalized contexts, arguers have influence over the type of dialogue that will be adopted. Arguers are therefore responsible with respect to charity on two levels: First, they need to take reasons for charity into account when determining the dialogue-type. Second, they need to invest the amount of effort towards charity required by the dialogue-type.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"16 1","pages":"67 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74724752","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 : 2021-03-08DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1897276
David R. Dewberry
Abstract This study compares arguments made on the streets during First Amendment audits (FAAs)—YouTubers who purposefully record the police—to the arguments made in the courts over the right to record. After examining FAAs on YouTube (N = 120), the results reveal that the arguments made on the streets reflect and differ from the arguments in case law. As such, FAAs offer insights and variations upon themes of arguments made in case law about the right to record. The results also show the police’s and public officials’ response to recording in public reflect the inconsistent holdings about the right to record in circuit court opinions. From these findings, I make a number of observations, which suggest that First Amendment auditors are well-versed in the law and can offer contributions to the legal debate over the right to record. I then address the expressive nature of recording by highlighting the auditor’s corporeal body in the situation over the mediated dialogue seen on YouTube. I conclude with the study’s implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
{"title":"First Amendment audits: comparing the arguments for the right to record on the street to arguments in case law","authors":"David R. Dewberry","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1897276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1897276","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study compares arguments made on the streets during First Amendment audits (FAAs)—YouTubers who purposefully record the police—to the arguments made in the courts over the right to record. After examining FAAs on YouTube (N = 120), the results reveal that the arguments made on the streets reflect and differ from the arguments in case law. As such, FAAs offer insights and variations upon themes of arguments made in case law about the right to record. The results also show the police’s and public officials’ response to recording in public reflect the inconsistent holdings about the right to record in circuit court opinions. From these findings, I make a number of observations, which suggest that First Amendment auditors are well-versed in the law and can offer contributions to the legal debate over the right to record. I then address the expressive nature of recording by highlighting the auditor’s corporeal body in the situation over the mediated dialogue seen on YouTube. I conclude with the study’s implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"3 1","pages":"85 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81407580","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 : 2021-01-20DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1873480
Kory Riemensperger
{"title":"The limitations of the open mind, by jeremy fantl, oxford university press, 2018, pp. 229, $60.00 (hardcover), ISBN 978-0-19-880795-7","authors":"Kory Riemensperger","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1873480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1873480","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"103 1","pages":"143 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79927168","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1894392
Carolyn D. Commer
Abstract Previous rhetorical scholarship has examined how the rhetoric of accountability has replaced the rhetoric of opportunity for education policy resulting in damaging consequences for public education. Likewise, higher education scholarship has traced the adverse effects of accountability rhetoric to the rise of new assessment metrics and an obsession with quantification in rankings systems that perpetuate inequity in higher education. This article responds to that work by examining a 2006 case when higher education advocates attempted to rival the accountability reforms proposed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Spellings Commission. Offering a rhetorical analysis of more than one hundred responses to the commission, I found that higher education leaders utilized dissociation to offer an “alternative reality” and an alternate set of criteria for evaluating the quality of higher education. The analysis identifies five “dissociative topoi” used to argue that standardized accountability metrics were incompatible with U.S. higher education values. I conclude by suggesting that a dissociation of market accountability from public accountability in education can be a generative heuristic for inventing a rival alternative to current accountability rhetoric.
{"title":"Rivaling the rhetoric of accountability: dissociation as an advocacy strategy in U.S. higher education policy","authors":"Carolyn D. Commer","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1894392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1894392","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Previous rhetorical scholarship has examined how the rhetoric of accountability has replaced the rhetoric of opportunity for education policy resulting in damaging consequences for public education. Likewise, higher education scholarship has traced the adverse effects of accountability rhetoric to the rise of new assessment metrics and an obsession with quantification in rankings systems that perpetuate inequity in higher education. This article responds to that work by examining a 2006 case when higher education advocates attempted to rival the accountability reforms proposed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Spellings Commission. Offering a rhetorical analysis of more than one hundred responses to the commission, I found that higher education leaders utilized dissociation to offer an “alternative reality” and an alternate set of criteria for evaluating the quality of higher education. The analysis identifies five “dissociative topoi” used to argue that standardized accountability metrics were incompatible with U.S. higher education values. I conclude by suggesting that a dissociation of market accountability from public accountability in education can be a generative heuristic for inventing a rival alternative to current accountability rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"34 1","pages":"18 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78947278","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1894393
Josh C. Bramlett
Abstract Televised political debates are largely studied at the presidential level, and there is a paucity of research on debate effects for nonpresidential campaigns. This study explored televised debate effects in the context of the 2018 U.S. midterm Senate elections. A pretest/posttest design tested the normative and persuasive outcomes of debate viewing. Viewing one of the two Senate debates promoted information acquisition, influenced attitudes such as political information efficacy, candidate evaluations, intention to vote for a candidate, and intention to vote in the midterm elections, and had marginal influences on political cynicism and political interest. Presidential debates are not the only debates that matter: nonpresidential televised debates can also persuade voters and foster positive democratic outcomes.
{"title":"Examining the normative and persuasive effects of televised U.S. Senate debates","authors":"Josh C. Bramlett","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1894393","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1894393","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Televised political debates are largely studied at the presidential level, and there is a paucity of research on debate effects for nonpresidential campaigns. This study explored televised debate effects in the context of the 2018 U.S. midterm Senate elections. A pretest/posttest design tested the normative and persuasive outcomes of debate viewing. Viewing one of the two Senate debates promoted information acquisition, influenced attitudes such as political information efficacy, candidate evaluations, intention to vote for a candidate, and intention to vote in the midterm elections, and had marginal influences on political cynicism and political interest. Presidential debates are not the only debates that matter: nonpresidential televised debates can also persuade voters and foster positive democratic outcomes.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"44 1","pages":"37 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77803889","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1894395
Emily S. Kofoed
Abstract The 1990 Board of Immigration Appeals case, the Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, was the first to establish lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people as eligible for asylum in the United States upon proof of their “homosexual” identity and of their “well-founded fear of persecution” in another nation. The Toboso-Alfonso case united issues of immigration and sexual orientation, complicating notions of private and public and questioning the necessity of exclusionary immigration policies. I argue that in making Toboso-Alfonso precedent for similar cases, the U.S. ultimately removed a barrier to entry for LGBT migrants but set in place norms that continue to regulate LGBT identity. My findings assert that administrative legal arguments hold the ability to set in place a rhetorical precedent that shapes future performances associated with that precedent—performances of citizenship in particular—by shaping the collective understanding of citizenship (and citizens) in the social imaginary.
1990年美国移民上诉委员会(Board of Immigration Appeals)的托博索-阿方索案(Matter of Toboso-Alfonso)是第一个认定女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和变性人(LGBT)有资格在美国获得庇护的案件，只要证明他们的“同性恋”身份，以及他们“有充分理由担心在另一个国家受到迫害”。托博索-阿方索案件将移民和性取向问题结合在一起，使私人和公共的概念复杂化，并质疑排他移民政策的必要性。我认为，通过将托博索-阿方索案作为类似案件的先例，美国最终消除了LGBT移民进入美国的障碍，但却制定了继续规范LGBT身份的规范。我的研究结果表明，行政法律论证有能力建立一个修辞先例，通过塑造社会想象中对公民(和公民)的集体理解，塑造与该先例相关的未来表现——特别是公民的表现。
{"title":"Crafting rhetorical precedent: the paradox of the LGBT asylum seeker in the Matter of Toboso-Alfonso","authors":"Emily S. Kofoed","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1894395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1894395","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 1990 Board of Immigration Appeals case, the Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, was the first to establish lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people as eligible for asylum in the United States upon proof of their “homosexual” identity and of their “well-founded fear of persecution” in another nation. The Toboso-Alfonso case united issues of immigration and sexual orientation, complicating notions of private and public and questioning the necessity of exclusionary immigration policies. I argue that in making Toboso-Alfonso precedent for similar cases, the U.S. ultimately removed a barrier to entry for LGBT migrants but set in place norms that continue to regulate LGBT identity. My findings assert that administrative legal arguments hold the ability to set in place a rhetorical precedent that shapes future performances associated with that precedent—performances of citizenship in particular—by shaping the collective understanding of citizenship (and citizens) in the social imaginary.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"2 1","pages":"1 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78508441","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 : 2020-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2020.1858241
Victoria J. Gallagher, Max M. Renner
{"title":"Painting publics: Transnational legal graffiti scenes as spaces for encounter, by Caitlin Frances Bruce","authors":"Victoria J. Gallagher, Max M. Renner","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2020.1858241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2020.1858241","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"60 1","pages":"140 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90589656","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 : 2020-11-10DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2020.1845497
J. A. McVey
{"title":"The struggle over black lives matter and all lives matter by amanda nell edgar nd andre E. Johnson, london, lexington books, 2018, pp. 137, $39.99 (paperback) ISBN: 978-1-4985-7207-1","authors":"J. A. McVey","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2020.1845497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2020.1845497","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"12 1","pages":"57 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79525495","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 : 2020-11-07DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2020.1845927
Michael K. Middleton
{"title":"Homeless advocacy and the rhetorical construction of the civic home","authors":"Michael K. Middleton","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2020.1845927","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2020.1845927","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"45 1","pages":"60 - 62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74012230","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：