Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation

• Dedication.- Contents.- Acknowledgments.- Introduction.- Part One: Objectives of Studying Argumentation Rhetorically.- 1. Reflections on Making the Case.- 2. Argument as Hypothesis Testing.- 3. Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticism.- 4. What Does an Argument Culture Look Like?.- 5. Reclaiming Rhetoric’s Responsibilities.- Part Two: Approaches to Studying Argumentation Rhetorically.- 6. Product, Process, or Point of View?.- 7. Persistent Questions in the Theory of Argument Fields.- 8. Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.- 9. Taking the Jurisprudential Analogy Seriously.- Part Three: Patterns of Rhetorical Argumentation.- 10. Definitions.- 11. Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric.- 12. Felicity Conditions for the Circumstantial Ad Hominem: The Case of Bush v. Gore.- 13. Terrorism and the Argument from Ignorance.- 14. Arguing about Values: The Problem of Public Moral Argument.- 15. The Appeal for Transcendence: APossible Response to Cases of Deep Disagreement.- Part Four: Analyses of Rhetorical Argumentation.- 16. Conspiracy Arguments in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.-  17. Turning Points in the Galesburg Debate.- 18. Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definition.- 19. The Impasse of the Liberal Argument: Speculation on American Politics in the Late 1960s.- 20. Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Rhetorical Texts: The Case of Barack Obama in Cairo with Dima Mohammed.

"A valuable contribution to argumentation theory is provided in the compilation of 20 essays written by David Zarefsky during his academic career. ... Considering the richness of his ideas, the broad area to which they apply and the clever and lucid way in which they are presented to us, David Zarefsky has done the argumentation community a great service." (Henrike Jansen, Journal of Argumentation in Context, Vol. 4 (3), 2016) "Their selection and grouping reflect Zarefsky's choices, and the resulting anthology provides readers, whether students new to argumentation studies or established scholars, with valuable theoretical perspectives as well as models of analysis. ... it represents the scholarly achievement of the leading US scholar in argumentation studies and a rhetorical critic nonpareil." (Jeanne Fahnestock, Argumentation, Vol. 30, 2016)