- David Zarefsky , “A Reformulation of the Concept of Presumption,” paper presented the Central States Speech Association convention, April 7, 1972.
- David Zarefsky , “Argument as HypothesisTesting,” Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory, Practice, and Teaching , ed. David Thomas , 2d ed. (Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook, 1979), pp. 427–437.
- Thomas A. Hollihan , “Conditional Arguments and the Hypothesis Testing Paradigm: A Negative View,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , this issue, pp. 171–178.
- We have used ad hominem in the sense described by Henry W. Johnstone, Jr., to refer to an argument whose conclusion undermines its own objective. See Johnstone, Philosophy and Argument (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1959), pp. 73–92.
- See Allan J. Lichtman and Daniel M. Rohrer , “Critique of Zarefsky on Presumption,” Proceedings: National Conference on Argumentation , ed. James I. Luck (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, mimeographed, 1973), pp. 38–45.
- Tennyson Williams , “A Defense of the Hypothesis-Testing Analogue for Argument,” paper presented at the University of Nebraska Argumentation Seminar, February 27, 1981; Bill Henderson , “Debate as a Paradigm for Demonstrating Truth Through HypothesisTesting,” Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory, Practice, and Teaching , ed. David A. Thomas , 2d ed. (Skokie, Ill.: National Text-book, 1979), pp. 419–426.
- Hollihan , p. 175.
- Hollihan , p. 172.
- Hollihan , pp. 177, 175.
- Hollihan , p. 172.
- Zarefsky , “Argument as Hypothesis-Testing,” p. 434.
- Nor, it should be noted, does the policy-making paradigm. In their last iteration, Lichtman and Rohrer maintained that “policy comparison may involve any number of negative alternatives” (emphasis added). See Allan J. Lichtman and Daniel M. Rohrer , “Policy Dispute and Paradigm Evaluation: A Response to Rowland,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18 (Winter 1982), 147.
- Hollihan , p. 177.
- Hollihan , pp. 174, 178.
- Hollihan , p. 178.
- Hollihan , p. 176.
- Ironically, this approach has been referred to as “debating the resolution”—as if there were any alternative.
- Hollihan , p. 176.
- See Robert C. Rowland , “Standards for Paradigm Evaluation,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18 (Winter 1982), 133–140; David Zarefsky , “The Perils of Assessing Paradigms,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18 (Winter 1982), 141–144.
- Hollihan , p. 174.
- Hollihan , p. 174.
- The concept of the “negative position” is explored in J. W. Patterson and David Zarefsky, Contemporary Debate (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983), Chapter Twelve.
- We endorse the plea for viewing argumentation from multiple perspectives recently articulated by Wayne Brockriede , “Arguing About Human Understanding,” Communication Monographs , 49 (September 1982), 137–147.
- See James H. McBath , ed., Forensics as Communication: The Argumentative Perspective (Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook, 1975), p. 20.
The Journal of the American Forensic Association
Volume 19, 1983 - Issue 3