发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Argumentation and Advocacy最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
The “mother of all bombs” and the forceful force of the greater weapon “炸弹之母”，威力更大的武器
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1672029
J. Ohl
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
引用次数: 0
The 6th Tokyo Conference on Argumentation: Argumentation and Education, August 10–12, 2020 2020年8月10日至12日，第六届东京论证大会:论证与教育
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1630132
Takeshi Suzuki, C. Tindale, H. Matsusaka
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
引用次数: 0
Summer 2019—Recent ad hoc reviewers—Argumentation and advocacy 2019年夏季-最近的特别审稿人-论证和倡导
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1622860
{"title":"Summer 2019—Recent ad hoc reviewers—Argumentation and advocacy","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1622860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1622860","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73106127","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}
引用次数: 0
Scientific argument without a scientific consensus: Rachel Carson's rhetorical strategies in the Silent Spring debates 没有科学共识的科学论证:雷切尔·卡森在《寂静的春天》辩论中的修辞策略
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2018.1429065
Mollie K. Murphy
{"title":"Scientific argument without a scientific consensus: Rachel Carson's rhetorical strategies in the Silent Spring debates","authors":"Mollie K. Murphy","doi":"10.1080/00028533.2018.1429065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2018.1429065","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines Rachel Carson's rhetoric following the 1962 publication of Silent Spring. Although she had generated a fierce controversy, Carson could not rely on a scientific consensus to defend her arguments. As the author of this article argues, she turned to a series of interrelated strategies necessitated by the fact that controversy over pesticides was legitimate. Carson argued that the pesticide issue was moral, exigent, and corrupted by corporate interests. Rather than cloistering debate to scientific professionals, she granted the public autonomy to engage and form scientific arguments. In addition to extending scholarship on Rachel Carson, this article contributes to historical and contemporary understandings of environmental controversy. When an issue is contested within the scientific community, framing debate as open and promoting audience participation may be necessary – and perhaps effective – rhetorical strategies.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89769249","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}
引用次数: 9
Decoupling sex and intimacy: the role of dissociation in early AIDS prevention campaigns 解耦性与亲密关系:解耦在早期艾滋病预防运动中的作用
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-05-30 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1617617
Ryan Mitchell
{"title":"Decoupling sex and intimacy: the role of dissociation in early AIDS prevention campaigns","authors":"Ryan Mitchell","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1617617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1617617","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay furthers scholarly investigations into how the dissociation of concepts works in actual argumentative contexts. It argues that in moments of biomedical controversy, dissociation can stabilize the epistemic grounds of argument by drawing on taken-for-granted and fundamentally nonscientific forms of evidence. In service of this argument, I explore the role that dissociation plays in paramedical AIDS information materials published before the official recognition of HIV as AIDS's etiological agent in 1984. My analysis illustrates that these texts circumvent the uncertainty surrounding the cause of AIDS by forwarding tentative prevention protocols that dissociate sexuality from intimacy and thus encourage members of at-risk communities to adopt dominant, heteronormative relationship patterns. I conclude by arguing that the dissociation of concepts undergirds biomedicine’s ever-broadening epistemic authority—even in moments of palpable uncertainty—by legitimating contingent biomedical knowledge with commonplace social values.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75866137","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}
引用次数: 1
Precarious Rhetorics 不稳定的修辞
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-05-16 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1613860
Raymie E. McKerrow
{"title":"Precarious Rhetorics","authors":"Raymie E. McKerrow","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1613860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1613860","url":null,"abstract":"Life is precarious—we are all vulnerable in some conditions at some times for reasons we cannot always control. Thus, it comes as no surprise that rhetoric, that art of the contingent and variable ...","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90067529","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}
引用次数: 5
Fantastic visual argument and the Food and Drug Administration’s The Real Cost campaign 梦幻般的视觉论证以及食品和药物管理局的“真实成本”运动
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-05-03 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1608741
J. Justice
{"title":"Fantastic visual argument and the Food and Drug Administration’s The Real Cost campaign","authors":"J. Justice","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1608741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1608741","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Designing campaigns to discourage youth smoking remains a difficult task. Paradoxically, data suggests that The Real Cost campaign has been a success, despite research predicting that its fantastic imagery would be dismissed by adolescent audiences. In this essay I argue that The Real Cost messages activate values-based evaluative standards that are salient for adolescent audiences in an attempt to encourage them not to smoke. In addition to explaining the persuasiveness of this campaign, my findings suggest future directions for anti-tobacco messaging while enhancing understanding of public controversies where fantastic narratives are treated as “real” while strongly-supported arguments are not. Where a disconnect between public opinion and scientific consensus exists, rhetors should tap into their audience’s transcendent values, activate emotional associations, and produce new frameworks for evaluation, rather than relying upon fact-based appeals.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81406201","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}
引用次数: 1
A feeling of wrongness: pessimistic rhetoric on the fringes of popular culture 一种错误的感觉:流行文化边缘的悲观修辞
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-04-29 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1603711
Samuel Boerboom
{"title":"A feeling of wrongness: pessimistic rhetoric on the fringes of popular culture","authors":"Samuel Boerboom","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1603711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1603711","url":null,"abstract":"In their book, A Feeling of Wrongness, Joseph Packer and Ethan Stoneman articulate a goal of providing “an interpretive heuristic or critical-rhetorical hermeneutic for the identification and criti...","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74758450","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}
引用次数: 0
Post-presumption argumentation and the post-truth world: on the conspiracy rhetoric of Donald Trump 后推定论证与后真相世界:论唐纳德·特朗普的阴谋言论
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-04-20 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1603027
Ryan Neville-Shepard
{"title":"Post-presumption argumentation and the post-truth world: on the conspiracy rhetoric of Donald Trump","authors":"Ryan Neville-Shepard","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1603027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1603027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Building on the notion of post-truth, this essay suggests that Donald Trump—both as a candidate and president—has crafted a notion of post-presumption argumentation. While there are many theories of how presumption functions in argumentation, scholars agree that it is largely a procedural device meant to promote deliberation. The essay suggests that post-presumption argumentation has become a new model—rising partly from a cultural shift triggered by rampant conspiracy theorizing by political and social elites—that undercuts the presumption of veracity, undermines faith in institutions that give presumptions force, and rejects deliberation as a communal goal.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75306605","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}
引用次数: 11
The #Rhetoric of Waleed Aly’s “Send Forgiveness Viral”: Is Rogerian argumentation an appropriate response to racism? 瓦利德·阿里“传播宽恕病毒”的修辞:罗杰斯式的论证是对种族主义的恰当回应吗?
Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2019-04-03 DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2018.1544828
Lili Pâquet
{"title":"The #Rhetoric of Waleed Aly’s “Send Forgiveness Viral”: Is Rogerian argumentation an appropriate response to racism?","authors":"Lili Pâquet","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2018.1544828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2018.1544828","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2016, Waleed Aly, a prominent Muslim Australian academic and media personality, made an argument using the Twitter hashtag “Send Forgiveness Viral” that asked for empathy in the face of Islamophobia. While initially appealing, deeper consideration of his use of and appeal to his audience to use Rogerian strategies to combat racism presents problems. Can Rogerian argumentation strategies be utilized to combat racism? Using Aly’s #SendForgivenessViral argument as a case study, this article evaluates Rogerian argumentation and empathic response in therapeutic situations compared to arguments about discrimination, particularly those taking place through social media. While scholarly writing by Lassner (1990) and Ede (1984) is dated, they provide pertinent and influential ideas to consider. More recent scholarship used to evaluate #SendForgivenessViral includes arguments on race, rhetoric, and Twitter revolutions by Brock (2012), D’Cruz (2017), Gerbaudo (2012), Margolin (2017), and Roose (2016). Other sources will be drawn from contemporary social media responses to Aly’s segment. This article concludes that Aly’s use of Rogerian argumentation is flawed because it places the onus of combatting racism onto victims. Furthermore, Rogerian argumentation models have underlying problems with power relations.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90382235","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}
引用次数: 1
首页 上一页
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整，为了账户安全，请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们：info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务，方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：481959085
Book学术官方微信