Edward Schiappa is Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Communication at Purdue University. He is the author of Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric and the editor of Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric.

• Acknowledgments Introduction PART 1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 1. Evaluate Criteria for Conspiracy Arguments: The Case of KAL 007Marilyn J. Young and Michael K. Launer 2. Narrative Reframing of Public Argument: George Bush's Handling of the Persian Gulf ConflictCarol K. Winkler 3. The Failure of Argument in Decisions Leading to the "Challenger Disaster": A Two-Level AnalysisDennis S. Gouran PART 2. AXIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 4. Aligning Ethicality and Effectiveness in Arguments: Advocating Inclusiveness Percentages for the New Lutheran ChurchKathryn M. Olson 5. An Ethical Appraisal of Ronald Reagan's Justification for the Invasion of GrenadaRalph E. Dowling and Gabrielle A. Ginder 6. "I Respectfully Dissent": The Ethics of Dissent in Justice O'Connor's Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC OpinionJeffrey L. Courtright PART 3. IDEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 7. Ideology and Argument Evaluation: Competing Axiologies in the Sanctuary TrialKathryn M. Olson and Clark D. Olson 8. Arguing about Fetal "versus" Women's Rights: An Ideological EvaluationMary Keehner 9. Public Policy Argumentation and Colonialist Ideology in the Post-Cold War EraRebecca S. Bjork PART 4. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY 10. Examining an Argument by Cause: The Weak Link Between Pornography and Violence in the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final ReportIan Fielding 11. Survivor Testimony in the Pornography Controversy: Assessing Credibility in the Minneapolis Hearings and the Attorney General's ReportCatherine Helen Palczewski 12. Constituting Publics and Reconstructing Public Spheres: The Meese Commission's Report on PornographyGerard A. Hauser About the Contributors Notes Name Index Subject Index

"Once I started reading this book I could not put it down! It addresses how we justify the decisions we make in U.S. culture. Furthermore, this book represents an important contribution to the study of argumentation. People who study argumentation need this book. It pulls together a range of perspectives on argument evaluation and raises questions about traditional approaches to argument evaluation. Scholars of argumentation have been reticent to recognize in Palczewski's terms 'that the world is defined objectively, subjectively, and intersubjectively.' This collection encourages scholars to examine their own biases when they evaluate the ethicality of arguments. Questions that have been raised by feminist scholars in philosophy, English, psychology, sociology, and communication studies are addressed." — Patricia A. Sullivan, State University of New York, College at New Paltz

Edward Schiappa is Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Communication at Purdue University. He is the author of Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric and the editor of Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric.

• Acknowledgments Introduction PART 1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 1. Evaluate Criteria for Conspiracy Arguments: The Case of KAL 007Marilyn J. Young and Michael K. Launer 2. Narrative Reframing of Public Argument: George Bush's Handling of the Persian Gulf ConflictCarol K. Winkler 3. The Failure of Argument in Decisions Leading to the "Challenger Disaster": A Two-Level AnalysisDennis S. Gouran PART 2. AXIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 4. Aligning Ethicality and Effectiveness in Arguments: Advocating Inclusiveness Percentages for the New Lutheran ChurchKathryn M. Olson 5. An Ethical Appraisal of Ronald Reagan's Justification for the Invasion of GrenadaRalph E. Dowling and Gabrielle A. Ginder 6. "I Respectfully Dissent": The Ethics of Dissent in Justice O'Connor's Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC OpinionJeffrey L. Courtright PART 3. IDEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 7. Ideology and Argument Evaluation: Competing Axiologies in the Sanctuary TrialKathryn M. Olson and Clark D. Olson 8. Arguing about Fetal "versus" Women's Rights: An Ideological EvaluationMary Keehner 9. Public Policy Argumentation and Colonialist Ideology in the Post-Cold War EraRebecca S. Bjork PART 4. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY 10. Examining an Argument by Cause: The Weak Link Between Pornography and Violence in the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final ReportIan Fielding 11. Survivor Testimony in the Pornography Controversy: Assessing Credibility in the Minneapolis Hearings and the Attorney General's ReportCatherine Helen Palczewski 12. Constituting Publics and Reconstructing Public Spheres: The Meese Commission's Report on PornographyGerard A. Hauser About the Contributors Notes Name Index Subject Index

"Once I started reading this book I could not put it down! It addresses how we justify the decisions we make in U.S. culture. Furthermore, this book represents an important contribution to the study of argumentation. People who study argumentation need this book. It pulls together a range of perspectives on argument evaluation and raises questions about traditional approaches to argument evaluation. Scholars of argumentation have been reticent to recognize in Palczewski's terms 'that the world is defined objectively, subjectively, and intersubjectively.' This collection encourages scholars to examine their own biases when they evaluate the ethicality of arguments. Questions that have been raised by feminist scholars in philosophy, English, psychology, sociology, and communication studies are addressed." — Patricia A. Sullivan, State University of New York, College at New Paltz

Edward Schiappa is Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Communication at Purdue University. He is the author of Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric and the editor of Landmark Essays on Classical Greek Rhetoric.

• Acknowledgments Introduction PART 1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 1. Evaluate Criteria for Conspiracy Arguments: The Case of KAL 007Marilyn J. Young and Michael K. Launer 2. Narrative Reframing of Public Argument: George Bush's Handling of the Persian Gulf ConflictCarol K. Winkler 3. The Failure of Argument in Decisions Leading to the "Challenger Disaster": A Two-Level AnalysisDennis S. Gouran PART 2. AXIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 4. Aligning Ethicality and Effectiveness in Arguments: Advocating Inclusiveness Percentages for the New Lutheran ChurchKathryn M. Olson 5. An Ethical Appraisal of Ronald Reagan's Justification for the Invasion of GrenadaRalph E. Dowling and Gabrielle A. Ginder 6. "I Respectfully Dissent": The Ethics of Dissent in Justice O'Connor's Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC OpinionJeffrey L. Courtright PART 3. IDEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT EVALUATION 7. Ideology and Argument Evaluation: Competing Axiologies in the Sanctuary TrialKathryn M. Olson and Clark D. Olson 8. Arguing about Fetal "versus" Women's Rights: An Ideological EvaluationMary Keehner 9. Public Policy Argumentation and Colonialist Ideology in the Post-Cold War EraRebecca S. Bjork PART 4. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY 10. Examining an Argument by Cause: The Weak Link Between Pornography and Violence in the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final ReportIan Fielding 11. Survivor Testimony in the Pornography Controversy: Assessing Credibility in the Minneapolis Hearings and the Attorney General's ReportCatherine Helen Palczewski 12. Constituting Publics and Reconstructing Public Spheres: The Meese Commission's Report on PornographyGerard A. Hauser About the Contributors Notes Name Index Subject Index

"Once I started reading this book I could not put it down! It addresses how we justify the decisions we make in U.S. culture. Furthermore, this book represents an important contribution to the study of argumentation. People who study argumentation need this book. It pulls together a range of perspectives on argument evaluation and raises questions about traditional approaches to argument evaluation. Scholars of argumentation have been reticent to recognize in Palczewski's terms 'that the world is defined objectively, subjectively, and intersubjectively.' This collection encourages scholars to examine their own biases when they evaluate the ethicality of arguments. Questions that have been raised by feminist scholars in philosophy, English, psychology, sociology, and communication studies are addressed." — Patricia A. Sullivan, State University of New York, College at New Paltz