Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argumentation and Advocacy is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Taylor & Francis, [1] edited by Beth Innocenti of University of Kansas. The journal was previously edited by Katherine Langford, Harry Weger, Catherine H. Palczewski, and John Fritch.
Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument, or summation, is the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the ...
In debate, which is a form of argument competition, a case, sometimes known as plan, is a textual advocacy presented, in form of speech, by the Pro team as a normative or "should" statement; it is generally presented in the First Pro Constructive . A case will often include either the resolution or a rephrasing of it.
This course has the following learning objectives: Explain theories and practices of argumentation from the perspectives of logical reasoning, persuasive communication, and effective public deliberation Construct, analyze and critically evaluate public arguments, their component parts – claims, evidence, reasoning – and the relationships between those parts Apply mutual procedural ...
Dale Hample is an American argumentation and rhetorical scholar, associate professor at the University of Maryland.He has published many peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and written one book and edited another.
Post-fiat arguments attempt to show that the consequences of passing and enacting the affirmative plan would be in some way worse than the harms described by the affirmative. Such arguments are labelled post-fiat because they require the supposition of a world where the plan is passed and implemented. This sort of argument is no different from ...
The Illinois Supreme Court's ruling against Terminiello invoked Chaplinsky, and the "fighting words" doctrine figured prominently in the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Court's ...
A counterplan is a component of debate theory commonly expounded in the activity of parliamentary and policy debate. While some schools of debate theory require the negative position in a debate to defend the status quo against an affirmative position or plan, a counterplan allows the negative to advance a separate plan or an advocacy.