2020年总统大选辩论:理性论证还是政治表演

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION
R. C. Rowland
{"title":"2020年总统大选辩论:理性论证还是政治表演","authors":"R. C. Rowland","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After what was widely perceived to be a disastrous first debate in 2020, the second debate was viewed as a vast improvement, a shift that fulfilled the pedagogical functions of presidential debates for educating the public. A close analysis of the arguments in the two debates, however, does not support this judgment. Rather, it indicates that the 2020 presidential debates functioned more as political theater than they did as public argument. A change in format could shift the incentives facing the candidates, encouraging them to build strong arguments in favor of their position.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The 2020 presidential debates: reasoned argument or political theater\",\"authors\":\"R. C. Rowland\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract After what was widely perceived to be a disastrous first debate in 2020, the second debate was viewed as a vast improvement, a shift that fulfilled the pedagogical functions of presidential debates for educating the public. A close analysis of the arguments in the two debates, however, does not support this judgment. Rather, it indicates that the 2020 presidential debates functioned more as political theater than they did as public argument. A change in format could shift the incentives facing the candidates, encouraging them to build strong arguments in favor of their position.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumentation and Advocacy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumentation and Advocacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation and Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在被广泛认为是灾难性的2020年第一场辩论之后,第二场辩论被视为一个巨大的进步,这一转变实现了总统辩论教育公众的教学功能。然而,仔细分析两场辩论中的论点并不支持这一判断。相反,这表明2020年的总统辩论更像是一场政治表演,而不是一场公开辩论。形式的改变可能会改变候选人面临的动机,鼓励他们为自己的立场建立有力的论据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The 2020 presidential debates: reasoned argument or political theater
Abstract After what was widely perceived to be a disastrous first debate in 2020, the second debate was viewed as a vast improvement, a shift that fulfilled the pedagogical functions of presidential debates for educating the public. A close analysis of the arguments in the two debates, however, does not support this judgment. Rather, it indicates that the 2020 presidential debates functioned more as political theater than they did as public argument. A change in format could shift the incentives facing the candidates, encouraging them to build strong arguments in favor of their position.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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