The \u27comeback\u27 second Obama-Romney debate and virtues of argumentation

By consensus, President Barack Obama’s performance in the first 2012 Presidential debate was weak. Anticipating the second debate, commentators asserted that he must make a strong comeback to revive his candidacy. He is widely judged to have done so. I will examine the major argumentative exchanges in the debate to determine to what degree it exhibited virtues of argumentation and whether Obama’s perceived comeback was a matter of argumentative superiority as well as performance

Rhetorical Criticism: The Past Fifty Years

Not quite fifty years ago, in its fourth volume, Speaker and Gavel launched a feature called “Current Criticism.” Under the editorship of Wayne Brockriede, the journal took on an added mission: offering criticism of very recent cases of public address. Rather than traditional scholarly studies, the critiques were moiré like editorials: brief statements of an author’s point of view, with supporting arguments and evidence, ob topics of current interest related to public policy. The best of these essays were collected in a book edited by Robert O. Weiss and Bernard L. Brock and published for DSR-TKA in 1971

Commentary on: Christian Kock\u27s Virtue reversed: Principal argumentative vices in political debate

N/

One Man Great Enough: Abraham Lincoln\u27s Road to Civil War

Lincoln\u27s Pre-Presidential Years It is not surprising that there is strong, sustained interest in Abraham Lincoln\u27s pre-presidential years. He had almost no formal education and less experience than any of the 2008 candidates. Yet he confronted the most difficult circumstances any new p...

Cognitive communities and argument communities

Since Toulmin’s discovery of the field-dependency of arguments, and Perelman’s emphasis on audiences, argumentation theorists have developed the notion of “spheres of arguments” or “argument communities”. Since argument communities are communities of discourse guided by the participants’ cog-nitive experiences, they are also cognitive communities. “Cognitive breaks” between different argument communities will produce misunderstanding and futile argument. The paper will investigate “cognitive breaks” and describe in which ways they may obstruct reasonable argumentation between communities

Introduction : Michael Leff et la tradition des études rhétoriques aux Etats-Unis

Plus d’une année s’est écoulée depuis le décès soudain de Michael Leff le 5 février 2010, à l’âge de 68 ans. Sa disparition est une grande perte pour tous les collègues qui ont travaillé avec lui dans les domaines de l’argumentation, de la rhétorique et de l’analyse du discours. Michael Leff avait obtenu son Ph.D à l’Université de Californie à Los Angeles, en 1972 ; sa thèse portait sur l’œuvre de Sulpitius Victor. Tout au long de sa carrière, il a manifesté un intérêt prononcé pour la rhétor..

Contemporary Rhetorical Citizenship

Being a citizen is not just about holding a passport or being allowed to vote. It is also about how we communicate with each other about common societal issues. Rhetorical citizenship is about how we as citizens participate in society by means of discourse. How do we talk and write about civic issues? How are we addressed? How do we listen? This book presents studies from different academic fields of theoretical issues raised by public discourse, focusing on understanding and evaluating how its many manifestations both reflect, shape, and challenge the society it is a part of. The book also presents analyses of examples from around the world of civic communication, ranging from public hearings about same-sex marriage over polemical letters to the editor to public displays of knitting as a protest form.9789400601918 (pdf); 9789400601925 (epub)Wetensch. publicati

A Report on the Status of Standards for Tenure and Promotion in Debate

In what follows, we first provide an overview of debate in order to explain the importance of the activity and then review the status of tenure and evaluation standards among directors/coaches in various types of programs across the country. A mass email was used to ask directors/coaches to submit information about the nature of their current appointment (tenure track, term appointment, and so forth) and the standards through which their performance is evaluated. In addition to seeking information about appointment and evaluation standards for current coaches, we reviewed material from previous developmental conferences and the Quail Roost document, as well as information about how faculty in theater and academic professionals in positions similar to that of a debate director/ coach are evaluated. Following the review of current appointment and evaluation practices, we develop a case for the proposed two tracks for evaluating the performance of debate coaches. We conclude with draft standards