Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney's Truths

Donald Lazere

doi:10.2307/378279

College English Oct 1997

Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney's Truths

Donald Lazere

Abstract

n the overheated rhetoric of the culture wars, in which leftists and rightists seem to mimic each other in reviling their opponents as Orwellian twisters of the truth, and in an arena where the concept of objectivity is itself a contested issue, is it possible to delineate any objective criteria for judging the relative credibility of opposing arguments? By objective criteria I mean a set of ground rules that both sides would agree to abide by, at least in principle, and to which the extent of a writer's or speaker's compliance is demonstrable, to the satisfaction of those of good will on both sides. I do believe that following such principles of fair play can make it possible to engage in polemics-heatedly partisan argumentation-without lapsing into the irresponsible, onesided tactics of invective, and to persuade to one's side those on the other or on the fence who maintain an open mind and equal commitment to those principles. Toward this ideal, I propose the following:

Journal: College English
Published: 1997-10-01
DOI: 10.2307/378279
CompPile
Open Access: Closed
Topics: rhetorical criticism argument
Export: BibTeX RIS

Citation context

Cited by in this index (2)

Ellwanger (2009)

Bloom and His Detractors

Pedagogy
Roberts-Miller (2005)

When Agonism is Agony

Advances in the History of Rhetoric

References (0)

No references on file for this article.

CrossRef global citation count: 4 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney's Truths

Abstract

Citation context

Cited by in this index (2)

References (0)

Related articles