Scholarlink

This chapter examines the Fetterman v. Oz debate by employing Kenneth Burke’s concept of “terministic screens” and James Cherney’s argument constructs centered on ableist rhetoric. The debate is viewed through the lens of argumentation, identifying the primary elements of claims made, evidence proffered, and warrants expressed or inferred. We conclude that the debate, when examined through the filter of terministic screens, had the form and functions of a discriminatory discourse, one that framed Fetterman’s performance as anything but Quintilian’s notion of the good person speaking well.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Debating Disability: Reimagining Ableist Rhetoric

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Brian J. Snee,
  • Grant C. Cos,
  • R. Pierre Rodgers

摘要

This chapter examines the Fetterman v. Oz debate by employing Kenneth Burke’s concept of “terministic screens” and James Cherney’s argument constructs centered on ableist rhetoric. The debate is viewed through the lens of argumentation, identifying the primary elements of claims made, evidence proffered, and warrants expressed or inferred. We conclude that the debate, when examined through the filter of terministic screens, had the form and functions of a discriminatory discourse, one that framed Fetterman’s performance as anything but Quintilian’s notion of the good person speaking well.