Neste estudo, temos por proposta observar o debate político eleitoral, de modo a caracterizá-lo como um evento polêmico em que as opiniões não configuram o objeto principal do discurso dos interlocutores. Acreditamos que os participantes de tal gênero discursivo utilizam manobras argumentativas, que constituem falácias, como uma estratégia; entretanto, tal prática pode acarretar consequências ou efeitos diferentes daquelas tradicionalmente decorrentes de tal manobra. Como fundamentação teórica, aplicamos os conceitos da Teoria Pragmadialética da Argumentação (van Eemeren e Grootendorst: 1984, 1992, 2004), de certa forma conectada à Dialética, mas que apresenta diferenças importantes, principalmente por meio da dicotomia entre os termos Formal e Pragma (derivada de Pragmática). Os elementos pragmáticos que esse termo pressupõe referem-se à Teoria dos Atos de Fala e à Análise do discurso, inspiradas pelas descobertas dos filósofos que analisam a linguagem do cotidiano. Tratamos do emprego da falácia como uma espécie de inobservância às Regras de Discussão Crítica - regras que fazem referência a um comportamento, ou ação, pelo qual os interlocutores são responsáveis. Cada tipo de falácia pode ocorrer em um determinado estágio de discussão crítica, a qual corresponde a um modelo que apresenta estágios distintos, analiticamente, no processo de solucionar uma discussão, e cada violação às regras da discussão crítica pode tornar a resolução da diferença de opinião mais difícil ou mesmo impossível, configurando-se uma falácia. Tais violações são realizadas por meio de atos de fala dos tipos assertivo, comissivo, diretivo, declarativo ou declarativo de uso. A metodologia a ser utilizada constitui-se da observação das unidades de análise (os turnos de fala dos participantes), de modo a classificar a ocorrência das falácias. O corpus selecionado refere-se a debates políticos eleitorais exibidos pela mídia televisiva, no ano de 2008, referentes às eleições à prefeitura da cidade São Paulo-SP. / This paper deals with political debate, in order to analyze if the opinions are truly the aim of this kind of discourse and some of the strategic arguments, that can be understand as fallacies, would be find. At the Pragma-dialectical approach of argumentation (van Eemeren e Grootendorst: 1984, 1992, 2004) the concept of fallacies could be better understood as one impediment to the resolution of a disagreement. The theory proposes ten rules for the conduct of an ideal model of a critical discussion. A fallacy is a violation of one of the ten rules. Generically, such fallacies are moves which disrupt or derail the process of rationally resolving an expressed difference of opinion. A fallacy can happen in the various stages of a critical discussion by the performance of speech acts: comissives, directives, expressive and declaratives. The methodology is the observation of the speech acts of the participants on a debate in order to verify the fallacies that can occur. Political debates from 2008, for the mayor of Sao Paulo election is the corpus selected.

<p>The main purpose with this essay is to evaluate how the characters of the sexually deviated was discussed during the sexual political debate in the 1960s, and if those apprehensions were reflected in SOU 1976:9 concerning sexual abuse. Furthermore, my prime intention will be to compare the reconstructed historical context, alias the sexual political debate, with the analyzed document, with the purpose to explicate why the anticipated political action weren’t sanctioned and implemented by the parliament. The analysis is carried out through a methodology that retrieves its primal premises from Quentin Skinners theories regarding the history of ideas. My most essential conclusions would be that there in fact existed an equivalence regarding the ideological framework between the radical axioms that was conceived during the sexual political debate and the stipulations that was formulated in the document. Thus, the comparison indicate that SOU 1976:9 was published in a ideological milieu that were in fact contrasting with the ontological premises that supposedly guided the committees intentions.</p>

No description available.

The main purpose with this essay is to evaluate how the characters of the sexually deviated was discussed during the sexual political debate in the 1960s, and if those apprehensions were reflected in SOU 1976:9 concerning sexual abuse. Furthermore, my prime intention will be to compare the reconstructed historical context, alias the sexual political debate, with the analyzed document, with the purpose to explicate why the anticipated political action weren’t sanctioned and implemented by the parliament. The analysis is carried out through a methodology that retrieves its primal premises from Quentin Skinners theories regarding the history of ideas. My most essential conclusions would be that there in fact existed an equivalence regarding the ideological framework between the radical axioms that was conceived during the sexual political debate and the stipulations that was formulated in the document. Thus, the comparison indicate that SOU 1976:9 was published in a ideological milieu that were in fact contrasting with the ontological premises that supposedly guided the committees intentions.

<p>Abstract: The purpose with this study is to analyse the political debate about freedom of speech in Sweden and Denmark, after the caricatures of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed that the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten published in September 2005. For this debate four political parties have been chosen. These are: Socialdemokratiska Partiet and Moderata Samlingspartiet in Sweden and Socialdemokraterne and Venstre in Denmark.</p><p>An idea analysis has been chosen as method, and dimensions as an analysing tool. The overall result of the analysis is that right- and left political parties in Sweden and Denmark are more alike, than different in their political debate about free speech. They all wish for total freedom of speech, and see that as the foundation of the democratic society. The difference between the parties is that left parties put more weight on personal responsibility and minorities, than right parties that mostly debate about the meaning of democracy and why freedom of speech should not be restricted.</p>

Neste estudo, temos por proposta observar o debate político eleitoral, de modo a caracterizá-lo como um evento polêmico em que as opiniões não configuram o objeto principal do discurso dos interlocutores. Acreditamos que os participantes de tal gênero discursivo utilizam manobras argumentativas, que constituem falácias, como uma estratégia; entretanto, tal prática pode acarretar consequências ou efeitos diferentes daquelas tradicionalmente decorrentes de tal manobra. Como fundamentação teórica, aplicamos os conceitos da Teoria Pragmadialética da Argumentação (van Eemeren e Grootendorst: 1984, 1992, 2004), de certa forma conectada à Dialética, mas que apresenta diferenças importantes, principalmente por meio da dicotomia entre os termos Formal e Pragma (derivada de Pragmática). Os elementos pragmáticos que esse termo pressupõe referem-se à Teoria dos Atos de Fala e à Análise do discurso, inspiradas pelas descobertas dos filósofos que analisam a linguagem do cotidiano. Tratamos do emprego da falácia como uma espécie de inobservância às Regras de Discussão Crítica - regras que fazem referência a um comportamento, ou ação, pelo qual os interlocutores são responsáveis. Cada tipo de falácia pode ocorrer em um determinado estágio de discussão crítica, a qual corresponde a um modelo que apresenta estágios distintos, analiticamente, no processo de solucionar uma discussão, e cada violação às regras da discussão crítica pode tornar a resolução da diferença de opinião mais difícil ou mesmo impossível, configurando-se uma falácia. Tais violações são realizadas por meio de atos de fala dos tipos assertivo, comissivo, diretivo, declarativo ou declarativo de uso. A metodologia a ser utilizada constitui-se da observação das unidades de análise (os turnos de fala dos participantes), de modo a classificar a ocorrência das falácias. O corpus selecionado refere-se a debates políticos eleitorais exibidos pela mídia televisiva, no ano de 2008, referentes às eleições à prefeitura da cidade São Paulo-SP. / This paper deals with political debate, in order to analyze if the opinions are truly the aim of this kind of discourse and some of the strategic arguments, that can be understand as fallacies, would be find. At the Pragma-dialectical approach of argumentation (van Eemeren e Grootendorst: 1984, 1992, 2004) the concept of fallacies could be better understood as one impediment to the resolution of a disagreement. The theory proposes ten rules for the conduct of an ideal model of a critical discussion. A fallacy is a violation of one of the ten rules. Generically, such fallacies are moves which disrupt or derail the process of rationally resolving an expressed difference of opinion. A fallacy can happen in the various stages of a critical discussion by the performance of speech acts: comissives, directives, expressive and declaratives. The methodology is the observation of the speech acts of the participants on a debate in order to verify the fallacies that can occur. Political debates from 2008, for the mayor of Sao Paulo election is the corpus selected.

During the year before the 2022 Swedish parliament election, law and order is one of the most debated topics. To discuss their views on the subject, the leaders of the eight parliament parties participate in a broadcasted debate hosted by the Swedish TV channel TV4. The party leader debates are viewed as one of the most important platforms for the party leaders' communication with the voters, and the participating journalists have an important role in deciding what will be discussed, and which questions are asked.  This thesis examines how the topic of law and order is constructed by the partaking party leaders and moderating journalists during the debate. This by the use of Norman Fairclough's model for critical discourse analysis, and with the theoretical approaches of Wodak, Giddens and ‘agenda setting theory’ to examine the debate on different analytical levels. The study finds that the topic of ‘law and order’ is constructed by including the debate of immigration, which makes immigrants the group most clearly connected to the debate. We could also derive that a certain amount of ‘rhetoric of fear’ was being used during the debate, where party leaders exemplified how the viewer could be subject to crime. Lastly, a recurring construction of the topic that could be found is that tougher penalties is described as a necessary measure to fight the criminality in Sweden from both the opposition parties and the government.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of History / Donald Mrozek / Both Presidents Johnson and Nixon used the ideology of military containment of Communism to justify U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. Until 1968, opponents of this intervention attacked the ideology of containment or its application to Vietnam. In 1968, opponents of the war switched tactics and began to focus instead on the President’s credibility. These arguments quickly became the dominant critique of the war through its end and were ultimately successful in ending it. The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were central to the change of opposition strategy in 1968. For Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin incident had provided the political impetus to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which the administration used as an insurance policy against Congressional dissent. For Congressional dissenters in 1968, inconsistencies in Johnson’s version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident allowed them to undermine the Resolution as a weapon against Congress. For the American people, revelations about the administration’s dishonesty during the incident simply added to grave doubts that Americans already had about Johnson’s credibility; the American people lost confidence in Johnson, ending his Presidency. The dramatic success of this new strategy—attacking the administration’s credibility—encouraged other opponents to follow suit, permanently altering the framework of debate over the war. This change in opposition strategy in 1968 had a number of important consequences. First, this change in rhetoric ultimately ended the war. To sustain his credibility against relentless attack, President Nixon repeatedly withdrew troops to prove to the American people he was ending the war. Nixon ran out of troops to withdraw and had to accept an unfavorable peace. Second, after the war, this framework for debate of military interventions established—between advocates using the ideology of containment and opponents attacking the administration’s credibility—would reemerge nearly every time an administration contemplated military intervention through the end of the Cold War. Finally, because opponents of military intervention stopped challenging containment in 1968, the American public continued to accept the precepts of containment and the Cold War consensus survived until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

The aim of the present dissertation is to investigate and discuss the political debate on female monarchs during the early modern era (principally circa 1600 to 1720), while specifically pro- blematizing the relationship between rhetoric and practice. The study consists of three sections. The first comprises a study of regulations concerning female succession in the era, highlighting the relationship between the principles of gender and consanguinuity. The second section studies the debate both for and against female monarchs in general, analyzing the arguments presented by Swedish and English debatteurs and European legislators. The third section discusses the perception of female monarchs in practice. Here the focus is on Queens Christina (1632-54) and Ulrika Eleonora (1719-1720), who are both compa­red with each another and other reigning monarchs, primarily the English Queens Elizabeth I (1558-1603), Mary II (1689-94) and Anna Stuart (1702-14). This section is divided into four the­matic subsections: female monarchs in relation to ascension to the throne; education; war; and marriage. Furthermore, the opinions of Christina and Ulrika Eleonora themselves on female monarchs and female succession are discussed. This study has attempted to show that the question of the gender of the monarch has had significance for both the rhetoric and practice of female monarchy. It has been shown that the arguments used against female rulers have mainly concentrated on the principle of gender by labelling "female/feminine" as the negative polar opposite of "male/masculine". In contrast, the arguments used in favour of female monarchs have attempted to tone down the signficance of the fact that the monarch was a woman. Instead, the matter of the monarch's gender was discu­ssed in relation to other, more overriding principles for the monarchy as an institution, inclu­ding birth, dynastic continuity, royal distinctiveness, education, the preservation of order and legitimate succession to the throne. At the same time, this study has shown that traditionally female characteristics could also have a positive effect. One particular problem, both in rhetoric and practice, seems however to have been how and indeed if a female monarch could coordinate her role as sovreign with that of traditionally subordinate wife. / digitalisering@umu

[pt] Este estudo surge de indagações sobre as políticas públicas para a juventude em curso no estado do Rio de Janeiro, bem como as ações políticas e sociais no fenômeno da violência que envolve a juventude. Consideramos os jovens como sujeitos de direitos e cidadãos. No entanto, muitos jovens são vistos de forma desumanizada. O significativo índice de violência contra jovens, sobretudo negros, pobres e moradores de favelas traz preocupações e indagações quanto ao papel do estado protetor e os desdobramentos do debate político sobre juventude e a questão da violência no espaço do parlamento estadual. Este estudo apresenta uma análise dos discursos sobre juventude e violência presentes nos debates políticos na Assembleia Legislativa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (ALERJ), com foco sobre as violações de direitos e as propostas e ações favoráveis ou contrárias aos princípios de direitos humanos e uma reflexão sobre as ações dos parlamentares no estado do Rio de Janeiro. A partir de suas propostas, ações, ideias e posições os parlamentares podem promover políticas preventivas e de proteção ao segmento juvenil, vulnerável a toda sorte de violência que o envolve. O desejo, é que esse estudo contribua para novas reflexões e aprofundamento do tema. / [en] This study rose from concerns about public policies focused on youth being developed in the Rio de Janeiro state legislature (ALERJ) as well as the political and social actions of the phenomenon of violence which involves youth. We consider young people as a single group: the subjects of rights and citizenship. Despite this, many young people are seen in a dehumanized form. The high level of violence against youth, especially black and poor youth and residents of favelas raises deep concern about the role of the State as protector and the unfolding political debate about youth and violence in the Rio de Janeiro state legislature. This study analyses the debate targeted on youth and violence, focusing on the violation of rights, and proposals and actions for and against the principles of human rights, as well as a reflection on specific actions of legislators on this subject. Proposals and actions promoted by the state legislature officers can promote preventative and protective policies for young people who are vulnerable to all sorts of violence. The hope is that this study will contribute to the debate and possible new ways of thinking.