Public debate - An act of hostility?

Argumentation

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 431-443

  Jórgensen, Charlotte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Conspiracy arguments; Debate; Discussion; Eristic; Persuasion; Political argumentation; Rhetoric

Indexed keywords

EID: 54649084207     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1007735127171     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Dieckmann, W.: 1981, Politische Sprache, Politische Kommunikation: Vorträge, Aufsätze, Entwürfe, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg.
2. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992a, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, LEA, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
3. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992b, 'Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum ad Hominem', Argumentation 6(2), 141-159.
4. Goffman, E.: 1955, 'On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction', Psychiatry 18, 213-231.
5. Goodnight, G. T.: 1993, 'A "New Rhetoric" for a "New Dialectic": Prolegomena to a Responsible Public Argument', Argumentation 7, 329-342.
6. Goodnight, G. T. and J. Poulakos: 1981, 'Conspiracy Rhetoric: From Pragmatism to Fantasy in Public Discourse', The Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 299-316.
7. Govier, T.: 1992, A Practical Study of Argument, third edition, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
8. Infante, D. A., K. C. Hartley, M. M. Martin, M. A. Higgins, S. D. Bruning and G. Hur: 1992, 'Initiating and Reciprocating Verbal Aggression: Effects on Credibility and Credited Valid Arguments', Communication Studies 43, 182-190.
9. JoØrgensen, C., C. Kock and L. Rørbech: 1994, Retorik der flytter stemmer. Hvordan man overbeviser i offentlig debat, Gyldendal, Copenhagen.
10. Klein, J.: 1991, 'Zur Rhetorik politischer Fernsehdiskussionen', in G. Ueding (ed.), Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften. Geschichte, System, Praxis als Probleme des 'Historischen Wörterbuchs der Rhetorik', Max Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 353-362.
11. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson: 1980, Metaphors We Live By, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
12. Mehrley, S and J. C. McCroskey: 1970, 'Opinionated Statements and Attitude Intensity as Predictors of Attitude Change and Source Credibility', Speech Monographs 37, 47-52.
13. Muir, S. A.: 1993, 'A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate', Philosophy and Rhetoric 16(4), 277-295.
14. Walton, D. N.: 1989, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Walton, D. N.: 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation, State University of New York Press, Albany.
16. Walton, D. N.: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
17. Zarefsky, D.: 1990, Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
18. Zarefsky, D.: 1992, 'Spectator Politics and the Revival of Public Argument', Communication Monographs 59, 411-414.