Connecting argumentation in the Americas: past, present, future

References

• Aikin, S. F., and R. B. Talisse. 2019. Why we Argue (And How We Should): a Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, J. A. 2019. “Pioneering Informal Logic and Argumentation Studies.” In Informal Logic: A ‘Canadian’ Approach to Argument, edited by F. Puppo, 35–60, Vol. 9. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation. doi:10.22329/wsia.09.2019.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, J. A., and R. H. Johnson. 1987. “The Current State of Informal Logic.” Informal Logic IX (2 & 3): 147–151. doi:10.22329/il.v9i2.2671.
   Google Scholar
• Dutilh Novaes C. 2022. “Argument and Argumentation”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/argument/
   Google Scholar
• Gómez, C. 2012. Interculturality, Rationality and Dialogue: In Search for Intercultural Argumentative Criteria for Latin America. Echter Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D. 2016. “The Psychological Approach to Interpersonal Argumentation in the US Argumentation Community.” In The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, edited by F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, and S. Felletti, 257–274. College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D. 2021. “Do we Need Local Theories of Argument?” In Local Theories of Argument, edited by D. Hample, Alta Conference on Argumentation Proceedings, 3–5. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hundleby, C. E. 2021. “Feminist Perspectives on Argumentation.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/feminism-argumentation.
   Google Scholar
• Jasso Méndez, J., and E. Estala Rojas. 2017, August 28. Internacionalización de la Academia Mexicana de Lógica, A.C. The Mexican Cultural Centre (MCC). https://mexicanculturalcentre.com/2017/08/28/internacionalizacion-de-la-academia-mexicana-de-logica-a-c/.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. H. 2008. “Makings Sense of “Informal Logic.” Informal Logic 26 (3): 231–258. doi:10.22329/il.v26i3.453.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. H., and J. A. Blair. 2000. “Informal Logic: An Overview.” Informal Logic 20 (2): 93–107. doi:10.22329/il.v20i2.2262.
   Google Scholar
• Kahane, H. 1971. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. 8th ed. 1997, with Nancy Cavender. Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Kallio, H., A. M. Pietilä, M. Johnson, and M. Kangasniemi. 2016. “Systematic Methodological Review: developing a Framework for a Qualitative Semi‐Structured Interview Guide.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 72 (12): 2954–2965. 10.1111/jan.13031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konishi, T. 2009. “Toward a History of Argumentation: Canadian Informal Logic.” In: Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 CD-ROM, edited by J. Ritola, 1–26. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: OSSA. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/92/.
   Google Scholar
• Konishi, T. 2016. “When Different Perspectives Interact: A Historical account of Informal Logic between 1983 and 1987.” OSSA Conference Archive. 164. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/164.
   Google Scholar
• Konishi, T. 2020. “Canadian Infrastructure for a “Canadian School” of Informal Logic and Argumentation.” OSSA Conference Archive. 31. Windsor, Ontario, Canada. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA12/Wednesday/31.
   Google Scholar
• Leal Carretero, F. 2021. “Reseña de la Colección “Tablero de Disertaciones” de la Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara.” Quadripartita Ratio: Revista de Retórica y Argumentación 6 (12): 70–78. http://www.quadripartitaratio.cucsh.udg.mx/index.php/QR/article/view/130.
   Google Scholar
• Niño, D., and D. Marrero. 2015. “The Agentive Approach to Argumentation: A Proposal.” In Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, edited by F. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 261–278. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Palczewski, C. H., and A. Chase. 2021. “A Nasty and Persistent Feminist Theory of Argumentative Anger.” In Local Theories of Argument, edited by D. Hample, 2019 Alta Conference on Argumentation Proceedings, 25–31. New York, USA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Paliewicz, N. S. 2022. “Book Review: Energy Islands: Metaphors of Power, Extractivism, and Justice in Puerto Rico.” Argumentation and Advocacy 1–3. Catalina de Onís, Oakland, CA: University of California Press. doi:10.1080/10511431.2022.2061690.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. Traité de L’argumentation: la Nouvelle Rhétorique. Presses Universitaires de France.
   Google Scholar
• Puppo, F. 2019. “Introduction.” In Informal Logic: A ‘Canadian’ Approach to Argument, edited by F. Puppo, 1–34, Vol. 9. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation. https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/123.
   Google Scholar
• Rabionet, S. E. 2011. “How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-Structured Interviews: An Ongoing and Continuous Journey.” Qualitative Report 16 (2): 563–566. doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1070.
   Google Scholar
• Tindale, C. W. 2022. “Rhetoric and Interdisciplinarity: A Conversation with Christopher Tindale.” Revista Eletrônica de Estudos Integrados em Discurso e Argumentação 22 (1): 153–167. doi:10.47369/eidea-22-1-3413.
   Google Scholar
• Tindale, C. W. 2021. The Anthropology of Argument: Cultural Foundations of Rhetoric and Reason. New York, USA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., B. Garssen, E. C. W. Krabbe, F. A. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and H. J. M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar