Trump’s presidential announcement speeches and presidential nomination acceptance addresses were analyzed through the lens of a functional approach to political campaign discourse. In order to present themselves more favorably than their opponents, candidates typically engage in one of three rhetorical strategies: acclaiming, by emphasizing their own strengths; attacking, by diminishing their rivals' appeal; or defending, by responding to criticisms. This analysis focuses specifically on instances of acclaims and attacks in which themes related to immigration and immigrants are foregrounded. The findings indicate a discernible upward trend in the frequency of attacks directed at immigrants and foreign “Others”. A recurring metaphor in Trump’s rhetoric on immigrants is that of THE COUNTRY/NATION IS A HOUSE. Once established, this metaphor is employed with rhetorical precision, enabling the strategic manipulation of political discourse. Trump’s rhetoric thus contributes to a politics of fear and entrenches the binary opposition between “Us” and “Them.”

The field of argumentation theory is a rich field, with rather deep divisions.In addition to the perhaps most important distinction between formal logic and practical argumentation, that is, between the study of logical-mathematical inferences and how people actually argue within different domains, there are several "schools" that study practical argumentation.One could say (as argumentation theorists like) that the various schools are based on three different perspectives on argumentation in Western thinking, inherited from classical times: logic, dialectic, and rhetoric.The title of this fine anthology, edited by Christian Kock and Marcus Lantz, reveals that it is concerned with a rhetorical look at argumentation.More specifically, the book presents insights into the work on argumentation theory from the Copenhagen milieu in rhetoric.This builds on the seminal work of Merete Jrgensen, Charlotte Onsberg, Christian Kock, and Lone Rrbech, consisting of both a textbook (Jrgensen & Onsberg 1987) and an empirical research project -"Rhetoric that moves votes".These have been the cornerstone of the Copenhagen research into and teaching of argumentation, and the background for their particular rhetorical perspective.How does a rhetorical perspective on argumentation differ from the others, such as informal logic (based in Windsor, Canada) or pragma-dialectics (based in Amsterdam)?The distinctive character, and advantages, of the Copenhagen school are clearly highlighted in the book's introduction: A rhetorical perspective on argumentation takes the functions argumentation has in a democratic society as its starting point -always from a normative angle.What does it take for argumentation to serve (deliberative) democracy?In this sense, the Copenhagen 1.

This essay explores the idea that calling bullshit exemplifies Mercier and Sperber”s social intuitionist theory. It discusses a range of empirical research related to bullshit, including belief in the worldviews of Individualist vs. Communitarian and Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian with regard to accepting and rejecting ideas. Calling bullshit fits well with using the heuristics of like/not like and cognitive mechanisms of debunking misinformation.