ABSTRACT
Political elections in which issues of race, gender, and class rise to the fore make it possible for campaigns to function as sites of social controversy that bridge the public and personal spheres of argument. However, superficial engagement with questions of collective identity may function as disingenuous controversy when they re-entrench social conventions and participate in norms of communication that constrict, rather than expand, argumentative networks. Scholars of public argument can employ mootness to assist in the determination of whether a controversy is disingenuous. Standing examines if the court is the proper venue for a discussion to take place. Standing, in public controversy, examines if the opposing parties are discussing a particular issue. Argumentation scholars can use tests of justiciability to understand the impact of a claim on future discourse. In the legal system, justiciability provides standards that help legal arguments become productive.
