<p>Essay in Political Science C by Peter Nilsson, spring 2008.</p><p>Det offentliga samtalet – en argumentationsanalys av artikuleringen kring Kristianstad Arena</p><p>Tutor: Stig Montin</p><p>The purpose of this essay is to examine the public deliberation of Kristianstad Arena in the local newspaper and clarify who the actors are and what kind of arguments they express. Further I intend to find the differences between the actors and the kind of arguments they use. To fulfill the purpose I’ve used three minor questions which are; a) which actors participate in the public deliberation about Kristianstad Arena, b) Which are the arguments emerge, c) Which clear differences in the arguments is there between the actors? To find my answers I’ve examined the local paper during a period of four months. The tool I’ve been using to analyze the arguments has its origin in Toulmin’s model from 1958. The conclusion of the essay is that the public deliberation involves seven different kind of actors, who express’s three different kind of arguments. The actors are private persons, politicians, politically un-attached thinkers, politically attached thinkers, local business world, sports associations and media. The three types of arguments are about, the decision, the arena and the debate. The private persons and the politicians resemble each other and mainly express arguments about the decision and partly about the arena. The politically attached and un-attached thinkers more or less exclusively express arguments about the decision. The local business has an equal share of decision- and arena arguments, while the media and the sport associations mainly express arguments about the debate and the arena.</p>

Essay in Political Science C by Peter Nilsson, spring 2008. Det offentliga samtalet – en argumentationsanalys av artikuleringen kring Kristianstad Arena Tutor: Stig Montin The purpose of this essay is to examine the public deliberation of Kristianstad Arena in the local newspaper and clarify who the actors are and what kind of arguments they express. Further I intend to find the differences between the actors and the kind of arguments they use. To fulfill the purpose I’ve used three minor questions which are; a) which actors participate in the public deliberation about Kristianstad Arena, b) Which are the arguments emerge, c) Which clear differences in the arguments is there between the actors? To find my answers I’ve examined the local paper during a period of four months. The tool I’ve been using to analyze the arguments has its origin in Toulmin’s model from 1958. The conclusion of the essay is that the public deliberation involves seven different kind of actors, who express’s three different kind of arguments. The actors are private persons, politicians, politically un-attached thinkers, politically attached thinkers, local business world, sports associations and media. The three types of arguments are about, the decision, the arena and the debate. The private persons and the politicians resemble each other and mainly express arguments about the decision and partly about the arena. The politically attached and un-attached thinkers more or less exclusively express arguments about the decision. The local business has an equal share of decision- and arena arguments, while the media and the sport associations mainly express arguments about the debate and the arena.