- Henry W. Johnstone, Jr., Philosophy and Argument (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1959), esp. pp. 73–92.
- V. William Balthrop, “The Debate Judge as ‘Critic of Argument’: Toward a Transcendent Perspective,” Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20 (Summer 1983), 1–15.
- The notion of the “ideal speech situation” is found in several of the works of Jürgen Habermas. Its specific assumptions are summarized by Alvin W. Gouldner, The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology (N.Y.: Seabury, 1976), p. 142.
- See J. W. Patterson and David Zarefsky, Contemporary Debate (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983), pp. 296–299.
- Ulrich cites David Zarefsky and Bill Henderson, “Hypothesis-Testing in Theory and Practice,” Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19 (Winter 1983), 180.
- Walter Ulrich, “An Ad Hominem Examination of Hypothesis Testing as a Paradigm for the Evaluation of Argument,” Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21 (Summer 1984), pp. 4–5.
- The view of rhetoric as epistemic has been widely expressed in recent years. See especially Robert L. Scott, “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later,” Central States Speech Journal, 27 (Winter 1976), 258–266; Thomas B. Farrell, “Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62 (February 1976), 1–14; Michael C. Leff, “In Search of Ariadne's Thread: A Review of the Recent Literature on Rhetorical Theory,” Central States Speech Journal, 29 (Summer 1978), 73–91.
- The implications of vicious relativism are evident in the quotation from Wayne Booth (Ulrich, p. 6). On this view, any argument is to be regarded as sound if some person can be found to judge it so.
- David Zarefsky, “Policy Systems Debate: A Response to Lichtman and Rohrer,” Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, November 1979, p. 5.
- Ulrich, p. 5–6.
- Ulrich, p. 5.
- Ulrich, p. 5.
- See, for example, Patterson and Zarefsky, pp. 27–28; David Zarefsky, “Argument as Hypothesis Testing,” in Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory, Practice, and Teaching, Ed. David Thomas, 2nd ed. (Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook Co., 1979), p. 432.
- Ulrich, p. 5.
- Ulrich, p. 3.
- A similar point is made about documentary texts in E. Culpepper Clark, “Argument and Historical Analysis,” in Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Ed. J. Robert Cox and Charles Arthur Willard (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982), p. 300.
- For example, David Zarefsky, “The Perils of Assessing Paradigms,” Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18 (Winter 1982), 144; Zarefsky and Henderson, pp. 184–185.
- G. Thomas Goodnight, in Booklet of Judges, 1984 National Debate Tournament, Ed. Walter Ulrich (printed by the National Debate Tournament; copies available from Walter Ulrich at $5.00 per copy).
The Journal of the American Forensic Association
Volume 21, 1984 - Issue 1