Argumentation and Advocacy最新文献

{"title":"Beyond the margin: a (critical) qualitative study of people of color in intercollegiate forensics","authors":"Carlos A. Tarin","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1986944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1986944","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As the communication discipline continues to grapple with issues pertaining to identity, representation, and equity, it is pivotal that such conversations take place in the domain of intercollegiate forensics as well. While some national organizations have begun to more seriously address the process of improving inclusivity outcomes, little research has been conducted on marginalized populations in the activity. Drawing on critical communication pedagogy, this qualitative study explores the experiences of people of color in competitive intercollegiate forensics. Interviews with people of color within the community reveal three major tensions that are being negotiated: voice ←→ constraint, belonging ←→ exclusion, and support ←→ burnout. Exploring these tensions provides a way of understanding how diverse viewpoints might better be supported in the activity.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"137 1","pages":"83 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80851049","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}

{"title":"Social watching the 2020 presidential and vice-presidential debates: the effect of ideological homogeneity and partisan identity strength","authors":"Go-eun Kim, Benjamin R. Warner, Cassandra C. Kearney, Jihye Park, M. Kearney","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study presents a novel test of the effects of social watching a live campaign debate. We recruited just over 500 participants to view one of the two 2020 presidential campaign debates or the vice-presidential debate in real time via Zoom watch rooms. We experimentally manipulated the social dynamics of these Zoom watches to include either ideologically homogenous real-time chat, heterogenous chat, or no chat. We found asymmetry in the extent to which these chat manipulations exacerbated biased information processing. Participants in the homogenous chat Zoom sessions were more likely to provide negative debate performance evaluations of the out-group candidate but were no more likely to provide positive evaluations of the in-group candidate. Stronger partisans exhibited more bias in performance evaluation regardless of chat condition but, contrary to our expectations, did not engage in more chat compared to weak partisans.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"59 1","pages":"253 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83689969","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}

{"title":"Reception of climate activist messages by low-carbon transition actors: argument evasion in the carbon offsetting debate","authors":"Mehmet Ali Üzelgün, Maria Fernandes‐Jesus, Önder Küçükural","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1971381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1971381","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How do adherents to hegemonic discourses construe and respond to radical arguments by activists? To address the question, we examined how adherents to hegemonic climate change discourses react to a climate activist’s arguments. In interviews conducted with corporate actors of low-carbon transitions, we used a video excerpt to elicit critical reactions to an activist’s argumentation on carbon offsetting. We used the critical reactions as an index of interviewees’ reception of the activist’s case and pragma-dialectical theory to analyze them. We found that interviewees advanced four types of criticism concerning individual agency, awareness-raising, neutralization, and financial instruments. We discuss their inter-relations and how interviewees construed the activist’s argumentation in ways that evaded his more antagonistic claims.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"72 1","pages":"102 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89220202","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}

{"title":"Argumentation Network of the Americas announcement","authors":"Harry Weger","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1924936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1924936","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88018221","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}

{"title":"“All the research says”: manufactured consensus and the burden of proof in the racialized police violence controversy","authors":"Christopher Earle","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1965303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1965303","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article reconstructs and analyzes the argument strategies used by right-wing public intellectuals, journalists, and political figures to delegitimize the controversy over racialized police violence. I demonstrate how right-wing advocates aim to shift the issue to the technical sphere, claiming to represent an expert consensus and depicting antiracist advocates as misunderstanding, if not intentionally misusing, technical data. This case provides a rich opportunity to deepen rhetoric and argument study of, first, how advocates disguise racist and post-racial discourses in the terms of technical expertise, and, second, how the burden of proof is assigned and negotiated within racial controversies. Claiming to represent an expert consensus would seem to carry a much higher burden of proof than would amplifying technical uncertainty. I argue, however, that defenders of the police mitigate this burden through heavy reliance on argument from ignorance, insinuating that the supposed lack of evidence of officer bias means that police use of lethal force must be racially fair.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"27 1","pages":"65 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83518491","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}

{"title":"Presidential campaign debates in the 2020 elections: debate scholarship and the future of presidential debates","authors":"M. McKinney","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1963526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1963526","url":null,"abstract":"Four years ago, the Argumentation and Advocacy special issue of presidential debate scholarship was introduced by noting the “unconventional, unpredictable, unprecedented, and on many occasions rather ‘unpresidential’ presidential contest.” The studies contained in that issue went on to explore a “rather topsy-turvy election cycle [and] presidential campaign debates, with both primary and general-election debates serv[ing] as important campaign communication moments” (McKinney 2018, p. 72). Little did we know as we evaluated the debates of 2016 that what would occur in 2020 would set new records—on several measures new lows—for presidential debating, with a “topsy-turvy” debate cycle followed by one best characterized by outright tumult and disorder that overturned historic precedent and, potentially, has now established disturbing examples for the practice of future presidential debates. A common thread that runs throughout several of the studies contained in the current special issue of debate scholarship highlights the deficiencies with presidential candidates’ debate dialogue and argumentation, with these analyses often concluding the electorate is ill-served by current practices in presidential debating, particularly with our general-election debates. Important questions are raised by a number of these studies as to the future of our presidential debates, including how they should be structured, how journalists and debate moderators can best facilitate candidate debate, and suggestions for the type of candidate debate dialogue that will produce a more informed voter. Certainly, the stress of holding a national election in the midst of a global pandemic posed great challenges for many aspects of our electoral process in 2020, including our presidential debates. Yet, as the empirical analyses found in several of the studies in this special issue reveal, it was actually the incumbent president, Donald J. Trump, who posed perhaps the greatest threat to the institution of presidential debates. In keeping with his usual strategy of seeking to circumvent, control or even destroy those entities that present rules he must follow or would in any way limit his power and ability to exert his will, such as his frequent attacks on the judiciary (Rosen 2017), the legislative branch (Wehle 2020), or the press (Cobus 2020), Donald Trump also “declared war” on the Commission on Presidential Debates","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"74 1","pages":"149 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74520886","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}

{"title":"The 2020 democratic presidential primary debates: exploring politeness strategies for facing an aggressive incumbent","authors":"Robert S. Hinck, Edward A. Hinck, S. Hinck, William O. Dailey, Breanna Melton","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949554","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study applied politeness theory to the thirteen Democratic primary debates of the 2020 campaign with comparisons to previous findings regarding the 2012 and 2016 Republican primary debates, the 2016 Democratic primary debates, and general election debates from 1960-2016. Our results indicate that the 2020 Democrats were less aggressive in their attacks than Republicans in 2012 and 2016, and that primary debates from 2012-2020 featured less aggressive qualities, on average, than general election debates. Results of the 2020 Democratic primary debates in particular showed a three-phase process of initial low intensity disagreement among candidates, followed by a phase of directly attacking the incumbent, with a third phase focusing on the Democratic front runners with Moderate and Progressive candidates using more direct and indirect face threats than single-issue and fringe candidates. Finally, while polls predicted the amount of time and thought-units candidates were afforded in the debates, they had little influence on politeness strategies utilized by the candidates.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"54 1","pages":"181 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78104566","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}

{"title":"Presidential debate learning as a gateway to opinion articulation, communication intentions, and information seeking","authors":"F. J. Jennings, Josh C. Bramlett, K. Kenski, Isabel I. Villanueva","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949543","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Presidential debates are a source of political learning for those who watch them. This study examines how learning from debates cultivates intentions for political engagement by increasing individuals’ opinion articulation. Using data from a study that involved participants (N = 543) who watched a nine-minute video from the first 2020 general election presidential debate in which the presidential candidates answered questions about the economy, we find that people who learned most from this segment had increased ability to articulate their opinions about the candidates. Opinion articulation, in turn, was associated with people’s intentions to discuss the economy with others and to engage in candidate advocacy. Ultimately, these effects were associated with increased intentions to seek additional information about the economy. The direct and indirect effects of political learning are explained.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"7 1","pages":"236 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87114401","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}

{"title":"“This is a patriotism check”: Political economy, corruption, and duty to America in the 2020 primary debates","authors":"C. Coker, J. Reed","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949544","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 2020 Democratic presidential primaries involved the largest and most diverse slate of candidates in the modern era of party nominee selection, a diversity that allowed some candidates to reject neoliberal discourses endemic to American politics. In this essay, we analyze the 2020 Democratic primary debates to demonstrate the emergence of an alternative political economy that stands in opposition to standard economic orthodoxy. Candidates organized their critiques of the extant political economy around corruption, presenting it as rot at the heart of the present capitalist order, with Donald Trump more symptom than cause of America’s unjust and deeply flawed economic system. That rot compelled candidates to present an alternative in “economic patriotism” which posited obligation to the collective above and in opposition to neoliberal profit. The essay concludes by unpacking the implications of this break from orthodoxy in the campaign debate context.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"23 1","pages":"200 - 217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84468321","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}

{"title":"U.S. presidential debates 1948–2020: an issue of formality and respect","authors":"D. K. Scott, Mike Chanslor, Jenny Dixon","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates the level of formality in presidential debates. Using content analytic techniques, this study documents trends in address terms (ranging from the use of honorific titles to interpersonal insults) in presidential debates from 1948 to 2020. An availability sample of 241 debates (94% of all presidential primary and general election debates), including 21,857 coding units, reveal an overall decline in formal communication via the use of appropriate honorific titles and subsequent growth in informal and disrespectful references. Incivility spiral theory offers an interpretative framework that links the increase in informal patterns of communication to the growing level of incivility in debate discourse. Within this framework, it is speculated that a shift toward informality could be linked to a larger incivility spiral that will continue into the future. Beyond the link to incivility, it is also argued the shift toward informality may have a range of unique negative consequences.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"1 1","pages":"157 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75354693","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}