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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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 : 2021-02-09DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1878323
Joseph Packer
{"title":"Awful archives: conspiracy theory, rhetoric, and acts of evidence","authors":"Joseph Packer","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1878323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1878323","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73807152","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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：