Americas’ conviction: arguing democracy in the affective episteme

References

• Ahmed, S. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Azpura, D. 2022. “The Prospects for Democracy in Latin America in 2022.” El Pais. https://agendapublica.elpais.com/noticia/17583/prospects-for-democracy-latin-america-2022
   Google Scholar
• Bagehot, W. 1871/1895. “On the Emotion of Conviction.” In The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, edited by W. Bagehot and R. H. Hutton, 326–338. Hartford: Travelers Insurance Company.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, C. A. 1955. “The College Debater and the Red China Issue.” Central States Speech Journal 6 (2): 5–7. doi:10.1080/10510975509362361.
   Google Scholar
• Bazail-Eimil, E. 2022, June 13. “Biden’s Summit of the Americas was Over Before it started.” Reason.com. https://reason.com/2022/06/13/bidens-summit-of-the-americas-was-over-before-it-started/
   Google Scholar
• Biden, J. R., Jr. 2022, June 8. “Remarks by President Biden at the Inaugural Ceremony of the Ninth Summit of the Americas.” The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/08/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-inaugural-ceremony-of-the-ninth-summit-of-the-americas/
   Google Scholar
• Biro, J., and H. Siegel. 1992. “Normativity, Argumentation, and an Epistemic Theory of Fallacies.” In Argumentation Illuminated: Selected Papers from the 1990 International Conference on Argumentation, edited by F. H. V. Eemeren, C. A. Willard, R. Grootendorst, and J. A. Blair, 85–103). Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Black, E. 1992. Rhetorical Questions: Studies of Public Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, J. A. 2012. “Argumentation as Rational Persuasion.” Argumentation 26 (1): 71–81. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9235-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, D. 1966. “The Ethics of Democratic Debate.” Central States Speech Journal 17 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1080/10510976609362810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doury, M. 2012. “Preaching to the Converted: Why Argue When Everyone Agrees?” Argumentation 26 (1): 99–114. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9237-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckstein, J. 2018. “Designing Soundscapes for Argumentation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 51 (3): 269–292. doi:10.5325/philrhet.51.3.0269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandin, G. 2021. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Making of the Imperial Republic. New York: Picador.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, J. 1995. “Perelman, Adhering, and Conviction.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 28 (3): 215–233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40237860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, R. W., and D. Hicks. 2005. “Lost Convictions: Debating Both Sides and the Ethical Self-Fashioning of Liberal Citizens.” Cultural Studies 19 (1): 100–126. doi:10.1080/09502380500040928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, R. W., and D. Hicks. 2017. “Debating Conviction: From Sincere Belief to Affective Atmosphere.” In Speech and Debate as Civic Education, edited by J. M. Hogan, J. Kurr, M. Bergmaier, and J. Johnson, 149–162. State College, PA: Penn State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, R. W., and K. D. Kuswa. 2012. “From the Arab Spring to Athens, from Occupy Wall Street to Moscow: Regional Accents and the Rhetorical Cartography of Power.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 42 (3): 271–288. doi:10.1080/02773945.2012.682846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, D., and R. W. Greene. 2010. “Conscientious Objections: Debating Both Sides and the Cultures of Democracy.” In The Functions of Argument and Social Context, edited by D. Gouran, 172–178. Washington DC: National Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, D., and R. W. Greene. 2015. “Managed Convictions: Debate and the Limits of Electoral Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 101 (1): 98–112. doi:10.1080/00335630.2015.994903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langsdorf, L. 2010. “A Dichotomy Worth Dissolving: Conviction is to Philosophy and Objectivity as Persuasion is to Rhetoric and Subjectivity.” In The Functions of Argument and Social Context, edited by D. Gouran, 296–299. Washington DC: National Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Micheli, R. 2012. “Arguing without Trying to Persuade: Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation.” Argumentation 26 (1): 115–126. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9240-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, R. 1957. “The Ethics of Debating Both Sides.” The Speech Teacher 6 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1080/03634525709376840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. 2012. “Conviction, Persuasion, and Argumentation: Untangling the Ends and Means of Influence.” Argumentation 26 (1): 19–32. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9242-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plantin, C. 2012. “Persuasion or Alignment?” Argumentation 26 (1): 83–97. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9243-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, D. 2016. Coming to Our Senses: Affect and an Order of Things for Global Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowell, E. Z. 1934. “The Conviction-Persuasion Duality.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 20 (4): 469–482. doi:10.1080/00335633409380050.
   Google Scholar
• Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. 1948, April 4. “Not Left, Not Right, but a Vital Center.” New York Times Books. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-centermag.html?scp=47&sq=communism&st=cse
   Google Scholar
• Skitka, L. J., C. Bauman, and E. Mullen. 2008. “Morality and Justice: An Expanded Theoretical Perspective and Review.” Advances in Group Processes 25: 1–27. doi:10.1016/S0882-6145(08)25001-0.
   Google Scholar
• Sitrin, M., ed. 2006. Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thimsen, A. F. 2022. The Democratic Ethos: Authenticity and Instrumentalism in US Movement Rhetoric after Occupy. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Woolbert, C. 1917. “Conviction and Persuasion: Some Considerations of Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 3 (3): 249–264. doi:10.1080/00335631709360614.
   Google Scholar
• Yost, M. 1917. “Argument from the Point of View of Sociology.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 3 (2): 109–124. doi:10.1080/00335631709360590.
   Google Scholar