UFR LLASICLanguage, literature, performing arts, information and communication, journalism

Project

On March 25, the final meeting of DisputatioThe event was the culmination of rhetoric and argumentation workshops attended by volunteer students enrolled in L3 or Master's courses in the humanities. Drawing on university traditions dating back to the Middle Ages, the meeting brought together in the MSH amphitheater seven students who publicly presented an argumented speech, prepared in advance, in response to a question on the theme of progress - the theme chosen for this year's edition. They then exchanged their arguments in three team debates. The various merits of the students (quality of the argumentative material, organization of ideas, style, but also responsiveness and fair play) were rewarded by three prizes awarded by a jury and three prizes awarded by the public, financed thanks to the joint support of the UFR LLASIC and ARSH.

Context

The name disputatio points the way to a university tradition of oral debate. In the Middle Ages, disputatio consisted of an argumentative debate in front of a diverse audience, gathered for the occasion. Structured around a subject on which the interlocutors exchanged arguments for and against, the disputatio gradually disappeared in favor, on the one hand, of the domination of the written over the oral in the training of students, and on the other hand, of the exposition of knowledge by the master. We propose an annual cycle ofa series of workshops culminating in a meetingThe event will see volunteer undergraduate and graduate students from the H3S Faculty go head-to-head in a public disputatio, to be crowned by an audience vote and a prize. awards ceremony.

More than ever, it seems necessary to revive the lively practice of argumentative debate in the university curriculum, at a time when :
After decades of hegemony of the written word over the spoken word, more and more importance is being given to the spoken word, and there is renewed interest in rhetoric (creation of the Grand Oral du baccalauréat, proliferation of eloquence competitions, success of the documentary À voix haute by Stéphane de Freitas and Ladj Ly, questions raised by Yvan Attal's film Le Brio, by Clément Viktorovitch's videos, or by Victor Ferry's program Parle, etc.).

More and more intellectuals, journalists and rhetoricians are denouncing the impoverishment of public debate (polemical spirit, verbal violence, systematic polarization of debates, exaggeration, forms of incivism, cookie-cutter formulas, slogans, etc.).

There is a mistrust of rhetoric, which is in fact based on a misunderstanding, namely the confusion between rhetoric (understood as the art of persuading through argumentative discourse) and eloquence (understood as the use of speech in a strictly utilitarian perspective, notably by certain political and marketing professionals) - rhetoric not being just a matter of "communication".

In this context, it's not a question of using seductive or manipulative techniques simply to make a speech or appear eloquent. In contrast to a "show business" society that overemphasizes performance (actio) to the detriment of content, we offer you a piece of work highlighting high-level argumentation (inventio), rigorous structuring of the discourse (dispositio), and effective, controlled stylistic devices (elocutio).

The final meeting consisted of two events

An individual speech of 5 to 7 minutes, prepared in advance

In the week leading up to the event, each candidate drew a question on the theme of progress.

A debate between two teams (in pairs of your choice on site)

The jury then presented the participants with a new question (in the form of a quotation) to which they were asked to react on the spot, in a debate lasting 10 to 15 minutes. Prior to the debate, the pairs were given 10 minutes to confer. A moderator led the confrontation between the two teams.