Search

This study aims to describe the types of les connecteurs argumentatifs in the debate entitled The Place of Islam in the Republic: Marine Le Pen facing Jean Messiha on the Touche Pas à Mon Poste Youtube Channel based on its use in the context of the statement in the debate. The types of les connecteurs argumentatifs are based on the theory of les connecteurs argumentatifs from Riegel (2009) which include; (1) opposition-concession, (2) explanation and justification, (3) complement, and (4) conclusion. This study uses a descriptive approach. The data analysis method used refers to the qualitative data analysis technique according to Miles and Huberman. Data analysis was carried out on statements in the debate that used les connecteurs argumentatifs and described the function of these conjunctions according to the context of the sentence. The results of this study indicate that there are 24 les connecteurs argumentatifs contained in the debate. From the 24 data found, 6 data were obtained for opposition-concession, 7 data for explanation and justification, 5 complementary data and 6 data for conclusions used by the speaker in statement. Based on the research that has been done, it can be said that the statement in the debate entitled The Place of Islam in the Republic: Marine Le Pen facing Jean Messiha on the Touche Pas à Mon Poste Youtube Channel contains les connecteurs argumentatifs., Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan penggunaan jenis-jenis les connecteurs argumentatifs dalam debat yang berjudul La place de l’Islam en République : Marine Le Pen face à Jean Messiha pada Kanal Youtube Touche Pas à Mon Poste berdasarkan kegunaannya pada konteks pernyataan dalam debat tersebut. Jenis les connecteurs argumentatifs berdasarkan teori les connecteurs argumentatifs dari Riegel (2009) yang meliputi; (1) opposition-concession, (2) explication et justification, (3) complémentation, serta (4) conclusion. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan metode deskriptif. Metode analisis data yang digunakan mengacu pada teknik analisis data kualitatif menurut Miles dan Huberman. Analisis data dilakukan pada pernyataan dalam debat yang menggunakan les connecteurs argumentatifs serta menjabarkan fungsi kata hubung tersebut sesuai dengan konteks kalimat. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat 24 les connecteurs argumentatifs yang terkandung dalam debat tersebut. Dari 24 data yang ditemukan, diperoleh data les connecteurs argumentatifs sebanyak 6 data opposition-consession, 7 data explication et justification, 5 data complémentation dan 6 data conclusion yang digunakan pembicara pada pernyataannya. Berdasarkan penelitian yang telah dilakukan dapat disimpulkan bahwa pernyataan dalam debat yang berjudul La place de l’Islam en République : Marine Le Pen face à Jean Messiha pada Kanal Youtube Touche Pas à Mon Poste mengandung les connecteurs argumentatifs.

The polarization in contemporary societies gives the impression that we live in a “debate society” in which people are occupied with persuading others of their positions. While debate may be useful, the focus on defending one’s own positions while excluding those of others hinders people’s attempts to understand and overcome their differences. Contrary to debate, within “dialogue” interactants aim at better understanding and transcending their differences. Focusing on recorded Dutch public meetings on the health effects of livestock farming and using conversation analysis, this dissertation aims at redefining existing conceptions of “debate” and “dialogue”. It treats their establishment as existing in moments and focuses on what interactants themselves treat as “moments of debate” or “moments of dialogue”. These insights provide ideas on how people may transform their conversation from debate to dialogue. Chapter 2 addresses the ways residents in public information meetings use questioning as a “way in” to pursue an admission from experts, conveying that they have an issue with a research method, the risk surveillance, or risk-reducing technologies. By systematically challenging experts’ responses, residents exploit the interaction’s sequential organization such that the goal becomes being convinced rather than being informed. Chapter 3 addresses situations where citizens treat officials as “shelving” issues. This uptake is preceded by officials treating citizens as not understanding the scope of discussion. Citizens subsequently turn the tables on officials, treating them as not wanting to fulfill their democratic duties; implications which officials downplay immediately. The analyses in chapter 2 and 3 show participants’ orientations to debate and the “missed opportunities” for dialogue. Contrarily, chapter 4 and chapter 5 demonstrate participants’ orientations to dialogue. Chapter 4 reveals a template describing one way “dialogic moments” unfold within public meetings, starting with organizers’ queries which retroactively address citizens’ palpable troubles, upon which citizens elaborate their issue. The analysis shows how organizers’ subsequent demonstration of understanding can be consequential for citizens, who reveal that these displayed understandings result in some amelioration of the indicated trouble. Such displays enable parties to reach a more stable closure to the troublesome topic. Chapter 5 places the argument for a conversation-analytic approach to “dialogic moments” in a broader structural framework of normative accountability in interaction. Specifically, the framework of the various preferences that support or promote social solidarity and the preference for progressivity, which complicate engaging in dialogue as they promote the suppression of differences. This chapter shows that “dialogic moments” require participants to go against these structural and normative features of interaction. Within “dialogic moments” participants solicit detail on differences, to better understand and transcend them. Chapter 6 describes how the combination of two approaches, interaction analyses and interviews, allow us to explore how the “wicked problem” of livestock farming is addressed and experienced in real life. The interviews suggest moving from a top-down approach still prevalent in risk communication practice to a two-way communication, involving farmers and residents much more directly. The interaction analyses reveal the interactional trajectories towards what participants orient to as “dialogic moments.” Overall, the findings of this dissertation suggest that dialogue can be established in more instances or events than those organized or structured as (putatively generating) dialogue, but its establishment poses challenges as it requires participants’ endeavors to solicit detail on (potential) differences, and recipients need to ratify such moves. This dissertation shows and argues that addressing another’s turns as a problem worth dealing with may allow for the exploration of differences. Such moves may provide the steppingstone for what participants treat as the start of a “good conversation”, which holds promise for an increasingly divided society.

Ushbu maqola umumiy o'rta ta'lim maktablarida zamonaviy ta'lim tizimini rivojlantirishda o'qituvchilarning ro'li, ularning dars jarayonlarida zamonaviy texnologiyardan foydalanib dars o'tishi haqida.

What determines the speech-making behaviour of legislators in the lower house (Nationalrat) and the upper house (Ständerat) of the Swiss federal parliament? In this chapter, we employ newly collected data on debates covering the 46th - 50th legislative periods (1999-2019) to investigate the determinants of participation in debates, and the verbosity of members' speeches. The Swiss electoral system creates incentives for personal vote seeking in both chambers, but the institutional settings are markedly different in the lower and upper house. The smaller upper house has relatively free debates, while debates in the Nationalrat are tightly regulated. We find that faction leaders are more likely to participate in the lower house, while committee chair(wo)manship and seniority are the most important predictors of speech-making behaviour, increasing both the participation and verbosity of speeches. Gender, in turn, fails to play a role in speeches once we consider the effect of other covariates.

Critiques of methodological approaches to evidence synthesis are published regularly; they contribute to the development of new understandings and the refinement or clarification of existing standards. From that perspective, we welcome the critique of meta-aggregation published in Nursing Inquiry as a contribution to science (Bergdahl, 2018). Some pertinent points were raised in this critique, as was one of the perennial challenges in any methodology, namely, that of facilitating increased consistency of reporting among qualitative evidence synthesis review authors (Cunningham et al., 2019). In considering the essence of Bergdahl’s critique, we revisit the position from which the critique was raised and propose a more situated epistemological perspective towards what a qualitative evidence synthesis might look like. We do so in the context of the varied knowledge needs of end users. ispartof: Nursing Inquiry vol:24 issue:4 pages:1-3 ispartof: location:Australia status: published

Le débat sur la confrontation entre Socrate et Calliclès dans le Gorgias s’est principalement concentré sur ses deux premières étapes : l’exposé par Calliclès de ses thèses et leur tentative de réfutation par Socrate (481-500), ainsi que ses tentatives subséquentes de leur substituer sa propre conception de la vie bonne (501-509). On a accordé beaucoup moins d’attention à la dernière étape (509522). C’est pourtant celle dans laquelle Platon met en scène la discussion la plus soutenue du dialogue entre les réponses concurrentes (et leurs conséquences) à ce qu’on a montré être sa question centrale : le plus grand mal est-il de commettre l’injustice ou d’en être victime ? Cet article examine en détail les étapes clefs de ce débat, auquel Calliclès est à nouveau invité à participer par Socrate, après qu’il a refusé de continuer à mi-chemin de la seconde phase du parcours dialectique. La thèse défendue est que le but de Platon dans cette dernière section est de montrer exactement pourquoi et comment Socrate peut entamer et poursuivre avec succès une confrontation intellectuelle avec un jeune politicien intelligent, désireux de réussir sa carrière dans la démocratie athénienne, tel qu’a été décrit Calliclès. Il échoue à le convaincre. Mais contrairement à ce qui est parfois supposé, cela n’a rien d’un échec en termes de communication intellectuelle ; la question est de savoir plutôt quels engagements fondamentaux différents Platon cherche à nous faire distinguer. Discussion of the confrontation between Socrates and Callicles in the Gorgias has mostly focused on its first two phases: Callicles’ statement of his views and Socrates’ attempted refutations (481-500) and Socrates’ subsequent attempt to substitute his own conception of the good life (501-9). Much less attention has been paid to the final phase (509-22). But this is where Plato stages the most sustained debate in the dialogue between alternative answers – with their consequences – to what has by now proved to be its central question: is committing injustice or falling victim to it the greatest evil? This article examines in detail the key moves in the debate, in which Callicles is again tempted by Socrates to participate, after refusing to continue midway through the second phase of the dialectic. It is argued that Plato’s aim in this final section of the conversation is to show just why and how Socrates might successfully initiate and sustain intellectual engagement with an intelligent young politician hoping to rise within the Athenian democracy, such as Callicles is portrayed as being. He fails to persuade him. But this is not, as is sometimes supposed, a failure of intellectual communication. It is a matter of what Plato wants us to understand as different fundamental commitments.

L’article analyse l’introduction de la visioconférence comme une mise à l’épreuve de l’idéal normatif de la comparution « corps présent » dans l’audience -judiciaire, et plus généralement comme étant emblématique d’une fragilisation de l’idéal normatif de la coprésence dans les réunions institutionnelles, au titre d’une prise de conscience croissante des coûts, économiques en particulier, de l’organisation de telles réunions. Nous y montrons comment ce dispositif de comparution à distance peut se prêter à deux lectures opposées. Dans la première, il fragilise l’idéal de la coprésence comme forme primordiale de la sociabilité (institutionnelle ou autre), et rend le cadrage des situations sociales vulnérable à toutes sortes de porosités numériques plus ou moins nuisibles. Dans la seconde, il constitue une ressource positive pour réaffirmer la nécessité d’un traitement des personnes, des usagers, des citoyens dans le cadre de situations d’interaction où l’on s’attend à ce qu’ils puissent être entendus, et donc qu’il y arrive quelque chose, ou du moins que cette possibilité soit préservée. This article analyses the introduction of the video-conference as a test of the normative ideal of a “physical” appearance at a court hearing and, more generally, as symbolic of a weakening of the normative ideal of the co-presence in institutional meetings, in the name of a growing awareness of the costs, in particular the economic cost of the organisation of meetings of this type. We show how this arrangement for remote participation can have two opposing interpretations. In the first, the ideal of the joint presence is weakened as a paramount form of sociability (institutional or other) and renders the framing of social situations vulnerable to all sorts of harmful digital inroads. In the second, these technologies constitute a positive resource enabling the re-assertion of the need to deal with people, users and citizens in the context of an interaction where the expectation is that they will be heard and therefore that something will happen, and they contribute to conserving this possibility.

Au livre 3 des Histoires d’Hérodote, sept gentilshommes, appartenant à l’élite perse, discutent de la forme de gouvernement qui serait la plus adaptée à l’empire. Si nous en acceptons la date fictionnelle, 522 avant notre ère, cette scène offre le premier exemple d’une définition comparative de la monarchie, de l’oligarchie et de la démocratie. Nous y rencontrons aussi la première description du gouvernement du plus grand nombre — un ordre politique qui finira par être appelé « démocratie ». Le pouvoir du peuple, cette chose typiquement hellénique, nous est donc présenté comme une invention perse : l’idée en serait venue non pas aux masses d’une polis, ou à un démagogue athénien, mais à un proche du Grand Roi. Au cours du récit, la démocratie se révélera être une forme unique de gouvernement : celle qui fait gagner la guerre. Les Histoires relèvent le défi de reconstruire, d’une part, une défaite qui était hautement improbable et, d’autre part, une victoire qui était encore moins prévisible. Tout en racontant ces faits, le texte en rend compte. Le narrateur ne prêche pas une morale de la maîtrise de soi, mais expose les effets réalistes de différents types de gouvernement. Contre toute attente, la démocratie fait progresser et renforce une petite cité, Athènes, en lui apportant croissance économique et puissance militaire. Malgré ses immenses ressources, la monarchie perse échoue. C’est la bataille de Salamine, succès éclatant du dêmos, qui fait tout basculer. Tout en aménageant une pause dramatique, dans la reconstitution des préparatifs des campagnes de Grèce, le débat offre une explication contrefactuelle à des événements historiques, en termes de théorie politique. C’est ainsi qu’il faut comprendre l’effet de la scène sur les Histoires. In Book 3 of Herodotus’Histories, seven Persian noblemen discuss which form of government would best fit the empire. If we accept its dramatic date, 522 BCE, this scene offers the first example of a comparative definition of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. It offers, even more strikingly, the very first description of the government of the many — a novel political order that will eventually be called a democracy. The power of the people, this quintessentially Hellenic thing, was then a Persian invention, an idea that occurred originally not to the masses of a polis, not to an Athenian demagogue, but to a relative of the Great King. In the course of the narrative, democracy will prove to be a unique form of government: the winning one. The Histories take up the challenge of recounting, and accounting for, a most improbable defeat, and for an even less foreseeable victory. The text does so not by preaching a morality of self-knowledge and self-control, but by exposing the realistic effects of different kinds of rule. Against the odds, democracy enhances and strengthens a small polis, Athens, making it grand and successful. Notwithstanding its immeasurable capabilities, the Persian monarchy fails. The turning point is the battle of Salamis, a prowess of the dêmos. A theatrical pause, in the narration of how the Great Kings came to prepare their campaigns against Greece, the debate offers a counterfactual explanation to historical events, in terms of political theory. This is, I will argue, the effect of the scene on the Histories.

Es diu que és impossible que els països autoritaris tinguin una opinió pública plenament desenvolupada. Jürgen Habermas criticava Internet per la dispersió dels continguts i la manca de mediadors. No obstant això, a països com la Xina, en alguns períodes recents, els blocs i els Micro blocs van permetre introduir alguns espais de deliberació, així conduir casos fins els mitjans de comunicació tradicionals. Hem estudiat dos estats, Xina i Cuba amb un enfoc completament diferent cap a les noves tecnologies. Xina va decidir empènyer Internet com un mitjà de desenvolupament, a la vegada que el tractava de controlar, i els ciutadans cubans han viscut en un període d'extrema dificultat en l'accés. El bloc del periodista xinès Wang Keqin a la Xina i el de Generación Y de Yoani Sánchez a Cuba, van estar especialment actius l’any 2010. Per aquest treball, hem utilitzat una triangulació de mètodes: anàlisi quantitativa i qualitativa sobre el contingut dels posts i dels comentaris, combinat amb l'anàlisi etnològica, entrevistes directes als bloggers i als corresponsals. El bloc de Wang Keqin, un dels pioners del periodisme d'investigació a la Xina, va suposar crear una finestra per a casos d'injustícia a les províncies fins ampliar la controvèrsia a tot el país. El periodista esdevé la primera part essencial d'una cadena contra la impunitat. Ciutadans que sol·licitaven moralitat i justícia van col·laborar amb ell, amb sentit de compromís i de comunitat, per resoldre cada cas, que significava, que acabessin als tribunals la justícia. El treball de Yoani Sánchez es va veure influenciat pel contrast entre la manca d'accés a Internet en el seu propi país i la seva extraordinària influència a l'exterior. Ella elaborava, més que reportatges, articles d’opinió, editorials, sobre notícies o vida quotidiana. Va acabar convertint-se en un altaveu dels punts de vista dels dissidents mentre defensava el diàleg nacional. L'enorme quantitat de comentaris al seu bloc va servir per crear un grup de debat entre diferents tipus d'expatriats, que reconeixien Yoani Sánchez com una portaveu no oficial des de dins de l’illa., Is is said that is impossible to have a fully developed public opinion in authoritarian countries. Jürgen Habermas criticized Internet because of the dispersion of content and the lack of mediators. However, in countries like China, in some recent periods, blogs and micro blogs permitted the introduction of some deliberation spaces, as well as targeting issues for mainstream media. We are studying two states, China and Cuba whose approach to new technologies has been completely different. China decided to push Internet as a tool for development, while trying to control it, and Cuban citizens have lived in a period of extreme difficulty in accessing. The blog of the Chinese journalist Wang Keqin in China and Generación Y from Yoani Sánchez, in Cuba, both bounded in a year of intense production in 2010. We used a triangulation of methods: quantitative and qualitative analysis on the content of posts and commentaries combined with ethnological analysis, adding direct interviews to the players and correspondents. The blog of Wang Keqin, one of the pioneers of investigative journalism in China, supposed to create a window for cases of injustice in the provinces and to move it to nationwide controversy. The journalist became the essential first part of a chain against impunity. Citizens asking for morality and justice collaborate with him, with a sense of engagement and community to resolve cases, which mean that finished went to justice. Yoani Sánchez work was heavily influenced by the contrast of the lack of Internet access in her country and her extraordinary influence abroad. More than reports, she elaborated opinion articles, editorials, based in her reflection about news or quotidian life. She becomes a speaker of dissent views while defending national dialogue. The enormous number of comments in her blog served to create a forum group, between different types of expatriates. They recognized Sánchez as an unofficial speaker from within.

In this thesis multi-agent argumentation debates are studied. Our work is motivated by the issues which are raised when a large number of users interact and debate on the Web, by exchanging arguments on various topics. These issues are raised on the levels of representing the debating users' knowledge, representing the debate, computing the debate's conclusions, evaluating the debate's quality, defining specific protocols for user interaction, and studying debate strategies which users employ in order to achieve particular goals. This thesis' contribution consists in: a) proposing a way to model a multi-agent argumentation debate where the participants have different types of expertise, and proposing a way to aggregate their opinions; b) offering support to the agent who is arbitrating a debate, proposing a way to evaluate the quality of a debate on the basis of how confident we can be on its conclusions, and proposing solutions for improving the quality of a debate which lacks definite conclusions; c) offering support to the debating agents in order to determine which arguments they should put forward, studying dynamic argumentation systems, studying the potential ways in which an agent can influence a dynamic argumentation system in order to achieve his goal, studying the minimal change allowing an agent to achieve his goal, studying several argumentation strategies based on minimal change; d) defining, studying and evaluating multi-agent argumentation protocols, defining protocols of different types (1) based on numerical argument evaluation and (2) based on argument extensions, using different techniques to ensure a debate's coherence while ensuring some liberty of expression to the agents, and finally performing an important number of experiments (on debates) in order to test various strategies and evaluate them with respect to specific criteria.; Cette thèse concerne l’étude des débats argumentatifs entre plusieurs agents artificiels. Notre travail est motivé par les difficultés qui surgissent quand un nombre important d’utilisateurs interagissent et débattent sur le Web, en échangeant des arguments sur différents sujets. Ces difficultés se situent au niveau de la représentation des connaissances des agents impliqués dans le débat, de la représentation du débat, de la façon de tirer les conclusions du débat, de l'évaluation de la qualité du débat, de la définition des protocoles spécifiques d'interaction, et de l'étude des stratégies des agents qui souhaitent atteindre un but précis via le débat. La contribution de cette thèse consiste donc en: a) la modélisation d'un débat argumentatif entre plusieurs agents, la modélisation des expertises de ces derniers, et l'agrégation des opinions des différents experts sur différentes parties d'un débat; b) l'apport d'une aide à l'agent responsable de la gestion d'un débat donné, la proposition d'une méthode permettant d'évaluer la qualité des débats argumentatifs en fonction de la confiance que l'on peut avoir en leurs conclusions, ainsi que la proposition de solutions permettant d'améliorer la qualité des débats dont les conclusions ne sont pas clairement établies; c) l'apport d'une aide permettant aux agents qui participent à un débat argumentatif de déterminer quels arguments placer dans le débat, l'étude des systèmes argumentatifs munis d'une structure dynamique, l'étude des moyens disponibles permettant à un agent d'influencer un système dynamique afin d'atteindre son but, l'étude des modifications minimales permettant à un agent d’atteindre un objectif donné, l'étude des stratégies argumentatives basées sur ce changement minimal; d) la définition, l'étude et l'évaluation des protocoles argumentatifs multi-agents, ainsi que la définition de protocoles de différents types (1) basés sur une évaluation numérique d'arguments et (2) basés sur des extensions d'arguments, l'utilisation des différentes techniques pour assurer la cohérence d'un débat tout en laissant une liberté d'expression aux agents, et enfin un grand nombre d'expérimentations (sur des débats) permettant de tester différentes stratégies et de les évaluer en fonction de différents critères.

International audience

International audience; In Book 3 of Herodotus’ Histories, seven Persian noblemen discuss which form of government would best fit the empire. If we accept its dramatic date, 522 BCE, this scene offers the first example of a comparative definition of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. It offers, even more strikingly, the very first description of the government of the many — a novel political order that will eventually be called a democracy. The power of the people, this quintessentially Hellenic thing, was then a Persian invention, an idea that occurred originally not to the masses of a polis, not to an Athenian demagogue, but to a relative of the Great King. In the course of the narrative, democracy will prove to be a unique form of government: the winning one. The Histories take up the challenge of recounting, and accounting for, a most improbable defeat, and for an even less foreseeable victory. The text does so not by preaching a morality of self-knowledge and self-control, but by exposing the realistic effects of different kinds of rule. Against the odds, democracy enhances and strengthens a small polis, Athens, making it grand and successful. Notwithstanding its immeasurable capabilities, the Persian monarchy fails. The turning point is the battle of Salamis, a prowess of the dêmos. A theatrical pause, in the narration of how the Great Kings came to prepare their campaigns against Greece, the debate offers a counterfactual explanation to historical events, in terms of political theory. This is, I will argue, the effect of the scene on the Histories.; Au livre 3 des Histoires d’Hérodote, sept gentilshommes, appartenant à l’élite perse, discutent de la forme de gouvernement qui serait la plus adaptée à l’empire. Si nous en acceptons la date fictionnelle, 522 avant notre ère, cette scène offre le premier exemple d’une définition comparative de la monarchie, de l’oligarchie et de la démocratie. Nous y rencontrons aussi la première description du gouvernement du plus grand nombre — un ordre politique qui finira par être appelé « démocratie ». Le pouvoir du peuple, cette chose typiquement hellénique, nous est donc présenté comme une invention perse : l’idée en serait venue non pas aux masses d’une polis, ou à un démagogue athénien, mais à un proche du Grand Roi. Au cours du récit, la démocratie se révélera être une forme unique de gouvernement : celle qui fait gagner la guerre. Les Histoires relèvent le défi de reconstruire, d’une part, une défaite qui était hautement improbable et, d’autre part, une victoire qui était encore moins prévisible. Tout en racontant ces faits, le texte en rend compte. Le narrateur ne prêche pas une morale de la maîtrise de soi, mais expose les effets réalistes de différents types de gouvernement. Contre toute attente, la démocratie fait progresser et renforce une petite cité, Athènes, en lui apportant croissance économique et puissance militaire. Malgré ses immenses ressources, la monarchie perse échoue. C’est la bataille de Salamine, succès éclatant du dêmos, qui fait tout basculer. Tout en aménageant une pause dramatique, dans la reconstitution des préparatifs des campagnes de Grèce, le débat offre une explication contrefactuelle à des événements historiques, en termes de théorie politique. C’est ainsi qu’il faut comprendre l’effet de la scène sur les Histoires.

publication en ligne: http://umr6576.cesr.univ-tours.fr/publications/Theta9/; Collection, co-edited by Richard Hillman and André Lascombes, derived from the XIth Round Table on Tudor Theatre (Tours), comprising 14 articles by French and foreign scholars.; Recueil, co-dirigé par Richard Hillman et André Lascombes, issu de la XIe Table Ronde sur le Théâtre Tudor (Tours), réunissant 14 articles par des spécialistes français et étrangers.

A comparative study of the function of political debate and political thought within English and French early modern drama., Etude comparatiste de la fonction du débat politique et de la pensée politique dans les théâtres anglais et français pré-moderne.

Collection, co-edited by Richard Hillman and André Lascombes, derived from the XIth Round Table on Tudor Theatre (Tours), comprising 14 articles by French and foreign scholars., Recueil, co-dirigé par Richard Hillman et André Lascombes, issu de la XIe Table Ronde sur le Théâtre Tudor (Tours), réunissant 14 articles par des spécialistes français et étrangers.

URL : http://umr6576.cesr.univ-tours.fr/publications/Theta9/articles/article.php?auteur=hillman; International audience; A comparative study of the function of political debate and political thought within English and French early modern drama.; Etude comparatiste de la fonction du débat politique et de la pensée politique dans les théâtres anglais et français pré-moderne.

2007 was the first international congress on the ?square of oppositions?. A first attempt to structure debate using n-opposition theory was presented along with the results of a first experiment on the web. Our proposal for this paper is to define relations between arguments through a structure of opposition (square of oppositions is one structure of opposition). We will be trying to answer the following questions: How to organize debates on the web 2.0? How to structure them in a logical way? What is the role of n-opposition theory, in this context? We present in this paper results of three experiments (Betapolitique 2007, ECAP 2008, Intermed 2008).

The term "scientific café" refers to the organization of a public discussion of socially pertinent questions which have scientific content in an informal setting, typically a café or a bar. The moderated discussion involves discussion between identified “experts” (scientists, stakeholders, decision makers) and the general public. This formula has seen wide success, and has been adapted for use in middle and high school classes. This paper describes some of the drawbacks observed when the café framework is simply transferred to school settings. Most notably, students fall quickly into a “Q&A” dynamic familiar to the classroom, but contrary to the spirit of the scientific café. The authors have developed a new format based on the audience response system ActiVote. In this format, no expert is identified, instead the students are asked a series of knowledge-based and opinion questions and are allowed to more freely interact. This communication concentrates on the comparison of the two debate formats.