ABSTRACT Opposition to Australia's resettlement of refugees has received considerable focus in discursive research; however, limited attention has been paid to how such opposition is challenged through talk. Existing anti-racism studies indicate a tendency to construct perspectives in support of welcoming newcomers as arguments against hegemonic viewpoints: a phenomenon known as “duelling discourses”. To explore the applicability of this concept to discussions about seeking asylum, this research employed rhetorical analysis alongside a critical discourse paradigm to examine how 24 Western Australian voters voiced competing perspectives about asylum seekers. Further demonstrating duelling discourses, the sample routinely discussed seeking asylum in a dialogic manner, orienting their positions as direct arguments against constructions of asylum seekers as illegal immigrants, economic migrants and “bogus refugees”. This article discusses these findings and considers their implications for both critical discourse and anti-racism scholarship.

中文翻译：

---

决斗话语：挑战西澳大利亚反庇护情绪的修辞手段

摘要 反对澳大利亚重新安置难民的言论在话语研究中受到了相当大的关注。然而，人们对如何通过谈话挑战这种反对意见的关注有限。现有的反种族主义研究表明，倾向于构建支持欢迎新来者的观点来反对霸权主义观点：这种现象被称为“决斗话语”。为了探索这一概念对寻求庇护讨论的适用性，本研究采用修辞分析和批判性话语范式来研究 24 名西澳大利亚选民如何表达有关寻求庇护者的不同观点。进一步展示决斗话语，样本经常以对话的方式讨论寻求庇护，将他们的立场定位为反对将寻求庇护者视为非法移民、经济移民和“假难民”的直接论据。本文讨论了这些发现，并考虑了它们对批判性话语和反种族主义学术的影响。