Three discourses of American debate (with a glimpse toward a fourth)

References

• Baird, A. C. 1923. “Shall American Universities Adopt the British System of Debating?” Quarterly Journal of Speech 9 (3): 215–222. doi:10.1080/00335632309379433.
   Google Scholar
• Bartanen, M. D., and R. S. Littlefield. 2014. Forensics in America: A History. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Bedsole, N. H. 2018. “Voice as Little Object (a)Rgument: On Hearing Gore Vidal and William F.” Buckley Jr. Argumentation and Advocacy 54 (4): 323–339. doi:10.1080/10511431.2018.1509594.
   Google Scholar
• Bracher, M. 1993. Lacan, Discourse, and Social Change: A Psychoanalytic Cultural Criticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bracher, M. 1994. “On the Psychological and Social Functions of Language: Lacan’s Theory of the Four Discourses.” In Lacanian Theory of Discourse: Subject, Structure, and Society, edited by M. Bracher, J. Alcorn, R. J. Corthell, and F. Massardier-Kenney, 107–128. New York, NY: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brockriede, W. 2006. “Where is Argument?” In Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, edited by R. Trapp and J. Schuetz. New York: International Debate Education Association.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Debate Guides n.d. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from. https://www.worlddebating.org/debate-guides
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, G. B. 2003. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, G. B. 2008. “What is Debate for? The Rationality of Tibetan Debates and the Role of Humor.” Argumentation 22 (1): 43–58. doi:10.1007/s10503-007-9079-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckstein, J. 2017. “Sound Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 53 (3): 163–180. doi:10.1080/00028533.2017.1337328.
   Google Scholar
• Eckstein, J., and S. M. Llano. 2017. “The Other British Invasion: Theorizing British Parliamentary Debate.” Contemporary Argumentation & Debate 35: 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Ehninger, D. 1970. “Argument as Method: Its Nature, Its Limitations and Its Uses.” Speech Monographs 37 (2): 101–110. doi:10.1080/03637757009375654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, G. A. 2001. Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fink, B. 1997. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
   Google Scholar
• Freeley, A. J., and D. L. Steinberg. 2009. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making (12th ed). Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Freud, S. 1961. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, R. W., and D. Hicks. 2005. “Lost Convictions.” Cultural Studies 19 (1): 100–126. doi:10.1080/09502380500040928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunn, J. 2007. “Hystericizing Huey: Emotional Appeals, Desire, and the Psychodynamics of Demagoguery.” Western Journal of Communication 71 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1080/10570310701199137.
   Google Scholar
• Iwu, L. 2018. Words That Win: A Guide to Competitive Debating and Why It Matters. London: John Catt Educational.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, A. 1968. Counterpoint: Debates about Debate. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lacan, J. 1991. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book 1, Freud’s Papers on Technique, 1953-1954 (J.-A. Miller, Ed.; J. Forrester, Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Lacan, J. 2007. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, B. 2012. 1949. “Contest of Words: High School Debate and the Demise of Public Speech.” Harper’s 325: 60–66.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, B. 2020. The Topeka School. Picador : Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Llano, S. M. 2017. “The Counterfeit Presentment: An Early 20th Century Model of Intercollegiate Debate as Civic Education.” Argumentation and Advocacy 53 (2): 90–102. doi:10.1080/00028533.2017.1304983.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, C. O. 2012. Lacan in Public: Psychoanalysis and the Science of Rhetoric. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. 2006. Cross-X (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, J. M. 1915. “A Disconcerted Editor and Others.” Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking 1 (1): 79–84.
   Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer, M. 2014. Wisenheimer: A Childhood Subject to Debate. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perdue, D. 2014. The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate: An Asian Approach to Analytical Thinking Drawn from Indian and Tibetan Sources (First Edition). Boston and London: Snow Lion.
   Google Scholar
• Perdue, D, and Phur-bu-lcog Byams-pa-rgya-mtsho 1992. Debate in Tibetan Buddhism. Boston and London: Snow Lion Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, D. 1944. “Debating in the Colonial Chartered Colleges.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 46 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1177/016146814404600109.
   Google Scholar
• Roosevelt, T. R. 1926. An Autobiography. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Rothfeld, B. 2022. “For Sake of Argument.” The Yale Review 110 (2): 47–66. https://yalereview.org/article/becca-rothfeld-debate.
   Google Scholar
• Seo, B. 2022. Good Arguments: How Debate Teaches us to Listen and Be Heard. New York: Penguin Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2003. “A Pragma-Dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion.” Argumentation 17 (4): 365–386. doi:10.1023/A:1026334218681.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, H. N. 1917. “Judging Debates.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 3 (4): 336–345. doi:10.1080/00335631709360630.
   Google Scholar
• Wenzel, J. W. 1990. “Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic and Logic.” In Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, edited by R. Trapp and J. Schuetz, 9–24. New York: International Debate Education Association.
   Google Scholar