Virtually all studies on the presidential use of metaphor focus on one particular event and speech. These studies look only at speeches that justify military actions after they have already occurred, and these researchers seek to discover a relationship between the use of the metaphor and the public's support of a military action. In order to analyze the persuasive elements of President Franklin Roosevelt's rhetoric in developing popular and Congressional support for war preparation, this study seeks to answer three specific questions. To what extent does Franklin Roosevelt develop a common theme in selected speeches of war preparation immediately prior to World War II? To what extent was Roosevelt's development of this theme persuasive to the American public? What consequences can be anticipated if future presidents or speakers for social movements employ these procedures.

This study traces the development of Lincoln-Douglas debate in Texas. The history of this type of debate from the Great Debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas to the Reagan-Mondale debates is considered. In addition, the merits of this type of oral controversy are explored. The reasons for the creation of L-D debate and its introduction into the forensic curriculum are discussed. In order to measure L-D's growing acceptance in the debate community, the results of a questionnaire of Texas Forensic Association debate coaches is evaluated. This study found that L-D debate is growing in participation in Texas schools. The distinct features of L-D enable it to be an innovative and challenging form of discourse.

This study seeks to determine the extent to which Jimmy Swaggart's program for defense in 1988 complies with the expectations of the apologia genre. Three discourse media are examined for evidence of denial, bolstering, differentiation, and transcendence. Swaggart's defense is classified as "justificative" in that it seeks approval of actions. Swaggart's motivating drive force is defined as the need to assure the financial success of his ministry. Swaggart's defense is then compared with the past apologies of Nixon, Truman, and Kennedy. It was determined that certain apologies cannot serve as a reference standard if the contextual factors are not similar. There are some rhetorical resources available to religious figures that are not available to politicians.

This study deals with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). The study analyzes the arguments presented in the decision by both the majority and the dissenting justices according to the Toulmin model. This study begins with a review of viewpoints on the First Amendment, and how they will be applied to the question addressed in the thesis. The history of the obscenity controversy is detailed to explain the viewpoints that the Supreme Court has taken dealing with this problem. This study concluded that the arguments presented by the majority were not supported by ample evidence. The arguments presented by Justice Douglas in the dissent were more justified. This study concludes that more study needs to be conducted in the area of obscenity; and that the material should not be suppressed.