Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672030
Zornitsa D. Keremidchieva
{"title":"To become an American: immigrants and Americanization campaigns of the early twentieth century","authors":"Zornitsa D. Keremidchieva","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1672030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672030","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"28 1","pages":"339 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81307318","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672033
D. Montez, P. Brubaker
Abstract This study explores how presidential candidates leveraged social aggression within the 2015–2016 U.S. presidential primary and general election debates in an effort to characterize their opposition, get ahead of their opponents, and compete for votes. Using a content analysis, this research identifies trends in the use of social, verbal, and nonverbal aggression by presidential candidates over time (both early and late in the election cycle), across political parties (Democratic and Republican primaries) and in different parts of the campaign process (primary elections and general election). Data show that political front-runners were the greatest victims of aggression in the primary debates. Additionally, aggression increased over time within each debate segment analyzed, with the general election debates featuring more aggression than the primary debates.
{"title":"Making debating great again: U.S. Presidential candidates’ use of aggressive communication for winning presidential debates","authors":"D. Montez, P. Brubaker","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1672033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672033","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study explores how presidential candidates leveraged social aggression within the 2015–2016 U.S. presidential primary and general election debates in an effort to characterize their opposition, get ahead of their opponents, and compete for votes. Using a content analysis, this research identifies trends in the use of social, verbal, and nonverbal aggression by presidential candidates over time (both early and late in the election cycle), across political parties (Democratic and Republican primaries) and in different parts of the campaign process (primary elections and general election). Data show that political front-runners were the greatest victims of aggression in the primary debates. Additionally, aggression increased over time within each debate segment analyzed, with the general election debates featuring more aggression than the primary debates.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"29 1","pages":"282 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85312131","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672028
Nick J. Sciullo
Abstract It is time for debate to do away with performance debate—not the practices this label describes, but rather the label itself. This article argues that performance debate is racially-coded language that devalues black participation in debate, and that, along with the label’s lack of benefit for coaching or thinking about debate arguments or strategy, warrants its dismissal from everyday use. Not only is it racially-coded and unhelpful, it also disincentivizes black participation which is always rendered as other. Racially-coded rhetorics are a particularly insidious way to express racist ideas under the guise of race-neutral language. As such, one way to express displeasure with or a distaste for black debaters, and to discourage their participation, is to describe their debate as performance debate as opposed to debate. In order to make policy debate, where performance debate has its genesis, more inclusive to minoritarian debaters and more pedagogically sound, debate participants must reject the performance debate label in order to resist re-inscribing the racially-divided history of policy debate.
{"title":"The racial coding of performance debate: race, difference, and policy debate","authors":"Nick J. Sciullo","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1672028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is time for debate to do away with performance debate—not the practices this label describes, but rather the label itself. This article argues that performance debate is racially-coded language that devalues black participation in debate, and that, along with the label’s lack of benefit for coaching or thinking about debate arguments or strategy, warrants its dismissal from everyday use. Not only is it racially-coded and unhelpful, it also disincentivizes black participation which is always rendered as other. Racially-coded rhetorics are a particularly insidious way to express racist ideas under the guise of race-neutral language. As such, one way to express displeasure with or a distaste for black debaters, and to discourage their participation, is to describe their debate as performance debate as opposed to debate. In order to make policy debate, where performance debate has its genesis, more inclusive to minoritarian debaters and more pedagogically sound, debate participants must reject the performance debate label in order to resist re-inscribing the racially-divided history of policy debate.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"57 1","pages":"303 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78814448","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1678290
Catherine L. Langford
{"title":"Editor’s comment","authors":"Catherine L. Langford","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1678290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1678290","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"31 1","pages":"347 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78882538","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672032
S. Maier
arguable. Two other examples illustrate this point. First, the debates over emergency contraception. EC advocates argued it would decrease the need for abortion and was used only as a last resort. These arguments made sense as a way to appeal to the opposition, but at what cost? Fixmer-Oraiz explains why this is a problematic argument strategy because it “acquiesce[s] to increasingly mainstream conservative values. Put another way, in lieu of a political defense of reproductive justice in all of its forms, the science marshaled on behalf of EC access bolsters antiabortion sentiment as both reasonable and mainstream” (103). Thus: “The behind-the-counter ruling that rendered EC accessible only through a convoluted chain of command was, in many ways, the logical outgrowth of the conservative rhetoric framing that anchored EC in mainstream imaginaries” (109). Rhetorical justifications delimit policy outcomes and possibilities. Second, the response to Suleman’s octuplets. The policies made thinkable were circumscribed by a rhetoric of homeland maternity that seeks to mitigate the risk of unruly bodies, the “risky maternal body–one imagined to parent against the norms and interests of the nation” (74). Fixmer-Oraiz concludes, “Existing scholarship is written largely from legal perspectives, responding to calls for regulation and industry reform, with little consideration afforded the communicative and cultural forces that fueled such calls for reform” (61). Instead of being able to think expansively about the reproductive needs of pregnant and parenting people, the focus was on controlling those bodies. I have long followed public policy debates over reproductive health care. FixmerOraiz’s conclusions should not have surprised me and the examples should not have horrified me. But they did. The ways in which poor people and people of color are disciplined made profoundly clear the cruelty visited upon their bodies. The perniciousness is explained not just by theories of gender/sex, but also by the fact that a despicable discourse of homeland security seeps into the public debates over reproductive policy.
{"title":"The educated eye: visual culture and pedagogy in the life sciences","authors":"S. Maier","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1672032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672032","url":null,"abstract":"arguable. Two other examples illustrate this point. First, the debates over emergency contraception. EC advocates argued it would decrease the need for abortion and was used only as a last resort. These arguments made sense as a way to appeal to the opposition, but at what cost? Fixmer-Oraiz explains why this is a problematic argument strategy because it “acquiesce[s] to increasingly mainstream conservative values. Put another way, in lieu of a political defense of reproductive justice in all of its forms, the science marshaled on behalf of EC access bolsters antiabortion sentiment as both reasonable and mainstream” (103). Thus: “The behind-the-counter ruling that rendered EC accessible only through a convoluted chain of command was, in many ways, the logical outgrowth of the conservative rhetoric framing that anchored EC in mainstream imaginaries” (109). Rhetorical justifications delimit policy outcomes and possibilities. Second, the response to Suleman’s octuplets. The policies made thinkable were circumscribed by a rhetoric of homeland maternity that seeks to mitigate the risk of unruly bodies, the “risky maternal body–one imagined to parent against the norms and interests of the nation” (74). Fixmer-Oraiz concludes, “Existing scholarship is written largely from legal perspectives, responding to calls for regulation and industry reform, with little consideration afforded the communicative and cultural forces that fueled such calls for reform” (61). Instead of being able to think expansively about the reproductive needs of pregnant and parenting people, the focus was on controlling those bodies. I have long followed public policy debates over reproductive health care. FixmerOraiz’s conclusions should not have surprised me and the examples should not have horrified me. But they did. The ways in which poor people and people of color are disciplined made profoundly clear the cruelty visited upon their bodies. The perniciousness is explained not just by theories of gender/sex, but also by the fact that a despicable discourse of homeland security seeps into the public debates over reproductive policy.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"73 1","pages":"343 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80533479","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672031
C. Palczewski
{"title":"Homeland maternity: US security culture and the new reproductive regime","authors":"C. Palczewski","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1672031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672031","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"55 1","pages":"341 - 343"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76401063","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672027
M. Camper, Zach Fechter
Abstract Much scholarly energy has been invested in understanding how rhetors covertly invoke racial bias and how “color-blind” rhetoric produces unintended racist effects. Less scholarly attention has been paid to the unintended racist effects of anti-racist rhetoric. Anti-racist rhetors often present racial disparities in the criminal justice system to argue for reform, but psychological research suggests that such information can inspire audiences to support the status quo. To understand the rhetorical factors that contribute to such results, we analyze anti-stop-and-frisk literature produced by two New York advocacy organizations. These organizations employ racial disparity figures in enthymemes, defined by Aristotle as syllogisms that invite audiences to complete sometimes incompletely expressed lines of reasoning. Variations in which parts of an enthymeme are clearly or prominently stated influence the range of possible propositions that audiences can supply to fill in missing or obscured pieces—the enthymematic free space. Based on our analysis, we identify three sources of risky enthymematic free space involving racial disparities that allow audiences to employ their racial prejudices as premises in arguments against stop-and-frisk, consequently concluding the opposite of what is intended. We recommend three alternative argumentative strategies to reduce the risk of producing this unintended rhetorical result.
{"title":"Enthymematic free space: the efficacy of anti-stop-and-frisk arguments in the face of racial prejudice","authors":"M. Camper, Zach Fechter","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1672027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Much scholarly energy has been invested in understanding how rhetors covertly invoke racial bias and how “color-blind” rhetoric produces unintended racist effects. Less scholarly attention has been paid to the unintended racist effects of anti-racist rhetoric. Anti-racist rhetors often present racial disparities in the criminal justice system to argue for reform, but psychological research suggests that such information can inspire audiences to support the status quo. To understand the rhetorical factors that contribute to such results, we analyze anti-stop-and-frisk literature produced by two New York advocacy organizations. These organizations employ racial disparity figures in enthymemes, defined by Aristotle as syllogisms that invite audiences to complete sometimes incompletely expressed lines of reasoning. Variations in which parts of an enthymeme are clearly or prominently stated influence the range of possible propositions that audiences can supply to fill in missing or obscured pieces—the enthymematic free space. Based on our analysis, we identify three sources of risky enthymematic free space involving racial disparities that allow audiences to employ their racial prejudices as premises in arguments against stop-and-frisk, consequently concluding the opposite of what is intended. We recommend three alternative argumentative strategies to reduce the risk of producing this unintended rhetorical result.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"44 1","pages":"259 - 281"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86431460","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 : 2019-10-01DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672029
J. Ohl
Abstract In April 2017, the United States military dropped the GBU-43/B Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB), colloquially known as the “Mother of All Bombs,” in Eastern Afghanistan. This essay foregrounds the MOAB as an intensified manifestation of argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force). I argue the weapon forwards dynamic material and symbolic appeals to force, and also satisfies sadistic appeals of force, to buttress American militarism from public opposition. After assessing the MOAB’s argumentative capacity to deliver convincing claims to international and domestic audiences, I conclude by calling for adoption of object-oriented sensibilities to understand and defy the forceful force of argumentative weapons.
{"title":"The “mother of all bombs” and the forceful force of the greater weapon","authors":"J. Ohl","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1672029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672029","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In April 2017, the United States military dropped the GBU-43/B Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB), colloquially known as the “Mother of All Bombs,” in Eastern Afghanistan. This essay foregrounds the MOAB as an intensified manifestation of argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force). I argue the weapon forwards dynamic material and symbolic appeals to force, and also satisfies sadistic appeals of force, to buttress American militarism from public opposition. After assessing the MOAB’s argumentative capacity to deliver convincing claims to international and domestic audiences, I conclude by calling for adoption of object-oriented sensibilities to understand and defy the forceful force of argumentative weapons.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"19 1","pages":"322 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75607460","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 : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1630132
Takeshi Suzuki, C. Tindale, H. Matsusaka
The 6th Tokyo Conference on Argumentation will be held August 10 (Mon)–12 (Wed), 2020. The conference is sponsored by the Japan Debate Association (JDA) and in cooperation with International Budo University, Chiba near Tokyo, Japan. The conference is designed to encourage exchanges of views on the theory, practice and instruction of argumentation across the disciplines. Basic information about the 6th conference is available at: http://japan-debate-association.org/tokyo_conference
{"title":"The 6th Tokyo Conference on Argumentation: Argumentation and Education, August 10–12, 2020","authors":"Takeshi Suzuki, C. Tindale, H. Matsusaka","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1630132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1630132","url":null,"abstract":"The 6th Tokyo Conference on Argumentation will be held August 10 (Mon)–12 (Wed), 2020. The conference is sponsored by the Japan Debate Association (JDA) and in cooperation with International Budo University, Chiba near Tokyo, Japan. The conference is designed to encourage exchanges of views on the theory, practice and instruction of argumentation across the disciplines. Basic information about the 6th conference is available at: http://japan-debate-association.org/tokyo_conference","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"44 1","pages":"258 - 258"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81747337","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：