- Home
- e-Journals
- Journal of Argumentation in Context
- Previous Issues
- Volume 1, Issue, 2012
Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2012
-
The rhetoric of imperial righteousness in a post-9/11 world
Author(s): Ann E. Burnette and Wayne L. Kraemerpp.: 143–167 (25)More LessThis paper examines the three US national security strategies released by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama since 9/11. These national security strategies are required presidential statements describing US plans for national security. The authors analyze Bush’s two and Obama’s one post-9/11 national security strategies and evaluate the argumentative framework of imperial righteousness in the documents. The rhetoric of American imperial righteousness contains four themes: national security, the nature of the enemy, freedom and democracy, and American morality. While there are some differences between the documents, the authors argue that Bush and Obama both promoted the idea of imperial righteousness in their plans for American national security. Moreover, the four themes of imperial righteousness worked together effectively to advance America’s interests in world affairs.
-
In search of an alternative history of debate in early modern Japan: The case of youth club debates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
Author(s): Tomohiro Kanke and Junya Morookapp.: 168–193 (26)More LessThis paper offers an alternative historical account of debate in Japan during the Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa eras (1868-1936). Most previous studies on the modern history of debate in Japan have focused on Yukichi Fukuzawa (the alleged founding father of Western debate) or political advocacy by voluntary associations in the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement (1874-1890). Contrary to the prevailing view that debate had largely dissipated by 1890 due to the government’s strict regulations and crackdowns, this paper demonstrates that debate continued to be an important activity of youth clubs across the nation. Emerging around the late 1880s, those youth clubs regularly held intra-group debates on various topics in order to advance knowledge in academic and practical matters. This paper concludes by suggesting that far from suppressing debates altogether, political authorities tolerated, and even promoted, certain forms of debate which they deemed fit for producing active yet subservient citizens.
-
Differences in actual persuasiveness between experiential and professional expert evidence
Author(s): Christian Burgers, Anneke de Graaf and Sabine Callaarspp.: 194–208 (15)More LessThis study investigates the persuasiveness of different types of expert evidence. Following Wagemans (2011), two types of experts were distinguished that can be used in expert evidence: experiential experts (who base their expertise on personal experience) and professional experts (who base their expertise on professional knowledge). In a between-subjects experiment (N = 179), these different types of experts were included in a news report on a political issue. Results indicate that the perceived expertise and persuasiveness of professional experts was higher than that of experiential experts. Perceived expertise completely mediated the effects of the different types of expert evidence on persuasion. These results point towards a recommendation of using professional expert evidence over experiential expert evidence in reporting on political issues.
-
Argumentation in the context of mediation activity
Author(s): Alena L. Vasilyevapp.: 209–233 (25)More LessThis study examines 18 transcripts from audio recordings of mediation sessions at a mediation center in the western United States to explore argumentation in the context of mediation activity. The mediation sessions involve divorced or divorcing couples attempting to create or repair a plan for child custody arrangements. The study takes a conversational argument approach and investigates what is the relationship between interaction and reasoning, how disagreement is managed, and how the mediator’s contributions construct an institutionally preferred form of interactivity. The analysis shows that the mediation activity is accomplished through various dialogue activities. The article makes two claims. Firstly, argument and reasoning are constituted through interaction that imposes various constraints on what contributions are appropriate in mediation talk. Secondly, dialogue activities that mediators initiate can be considered as strategic moves that they make to achieve the institutional goal of the meeting.
-
The role of the judge in legal proceedings: A Pragma-dialectical analysis
Author(s): Eveline T. Feterispp.: 234–252 (19)More LessIn this contribution I characterize the role of the judge in the context of the argumentative activity of legal proceeding. I describe the role of the judge from a pragma-dialectical perspective and explain in which way this role promotes a rational resolution of the dispute. I specify how a critical discussion in accordance with the ideal model is implemented in legal procedure to accomplish the institutional point, a resolution of the dispute in accordance with the Rule of Law.
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/22114750
Journal
10
5
false

-
-
Arguing with oneself
Author(s): Marta Zampa and Daniel Perrin
-
- More Less