Vai ai contenuti. | Spostati sulla navigazione | Spostati sulla ricerca | Vai al menu | Contatti | Accessibilità

| Crea un account

De Conti, Manuele (2014) Il dibattito regolamentato come metodo per acquisire competenze per la gestione di conflitti e disaccordi. [Tesi di dottorato]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Anteprima
Documento PDF
8Mb

Abstract (inglese)

Competitive debate is an argumentative confrontation about controversial issues in which parties try to convince a jury of the validity of their position. Even if its practice is quite a novelty among Italian educational methods it is used by educational institutions around the world to help students acquire skills such as social competence. However, researchers have found that competitive debates often create contradictory effects to those they are supposed to have. These include systematic hostility or competitive behavior, which are expressions of polarization and conflict rather than of empathy and perspective. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to inquire, through three empirical surveys, whether competitive debate is an effective method for acquiring conflicts and disagreements competence.
With exploratory research, it will be determined whether (a) defending a believed position leads to polarization, (b) defending a disbelieved position leads to de-polarization, and (c) victory or defeat influences polarization or de-polarization. The second survey, with a quasi-experimental design, aims to verify if and how participants in competitive debate tournaments alter attitudes toward communication strategies in conflict situations. Finally, a pre-experiment aims to consider whether (d) debating improves student ability to identify argumentative fallacies.
The results analysis proved that some tournament participants polarized, but that neither victory nor defeat affected this phenomenon. Additionally, the students became less inclined to use controversial communication strategies and more in favor of cooperative communication strategies, even if their ability to identify argumentative fallacies did not improve. These results, therefore, conclude that competitive debate projects promote useful attitudes toward conflict management, and that the didactics of argumentation must be rethought so it can affect the ability to identify major fallacies and thus, become competent in managing disagreements

Abstract (italiano)

Il dibattito regolamentato è un confronto argomentativo su temi controversi in cui le parti coinvolte mirano a convincere una giuria della bontà della propria posizione. Presente da appena un decennio nell’orizzonte italiano dei metodi educativi, è proposto dalle istituzioni educative di tutto il mondo per acquisire molteplici competenze tra cui quella sociale. Tuttavia, molti ricercatori attribuiscono al dibattito regolamentato ricadute opposte a quelle per cui viene impiegato quali, ad esempio, la sistematica assunzione di comportamenti ostili, agonistici o competitivi, espressione di polarizzazione e di conflittualità piuttosto che di decentramento ed empatia. Pertanto questa ricerca si propone di rispondere all’interrogativo se il dibattito regolamentato sia uno strumento efficace per acquisire competenze di gestione di conflitti e disaccordi, mediante tre indagini. La prima, un’indagine esplorativa, si chiede se (a) i dibattenti che difendono una posizione in cui credono si polarizzino, se (b) i dibattenti che difendono una posizione in cui non credono si de-polarizzino, ed eventualmente se (c) la vittoria o la sconfitta influisca su polarizzazione o de-polarizzazione. La seconda indagine, con disegno quasi-sperimentale, si propone di verificare se e come i partecipanti ai progetti di dibattito regolamentato modifichino gli atteggiamenti verso le strategie comunicative in situazioni conflittuali. Infine, semplificando, la terza ed ultima indagine, un pre-esperimento, mira a considerare se (d) i dibattenti, grazie alla pratica del dibattito regolamentato, migliorino la loro abilità di individuare alcune fallacie argomentative.
L’analisi dei risultati permise di provare che parte dei soggetti partecipanti alla ricerca si polarizzarono, e che la vittoria o la sconfitta non influenzò questo fenomeno, che i soggetti partecipanti ai progetti di dibattito regolamentato diventarono meno favorevoli verso le strategie comunicative controversiali e più favorevoli verso strategie comunicative cooperative, ma che, infine, la loro abilità di individuare le fallacie argomentative non migliorò. Questi risultati, pertanto, riconoscono la partecipazione ai dibattiti regolamentati efficace per acquisire atteggiamenti funzionali alla gestione dei conflitti ma richiedono di ripensare la didattica argomentativa affinché possa avere ricadute anche sull’abilità di individuare alcune importanti fallacie e quindi sull’abilità di gestione dei disaccordi

Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
Tipo di EPrint:Tesi di dottorato
Relatore:Cattani, Adelino
Dottorato (corsi e scuole):Ciclo 26 > Scuole 26 > SCIENZE PEDAGOGICHE, DELL'EDUCAZIONE E DELLA FORMAZIONE
Data di deposito della tesi:18 Gennaio 2014
Anno di Pubblicazione:18 Gennaio 2014
Parole chiave (italiano / inglese):Dibattito regolamentato, argomentazione, fallacie, gestione conflitti, gestione disaccordi, disaccordo, stili comunicativi, competitive debate, argumentation, fallacies, conflict management, disagreement management, disagreement, communication styles
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 11 - Scienze storiche, filosofiche, pedagogiche e psicologiche > M-PED/04 Pedagogia sperimentale
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sociologia, Pedagogia e Psicologia Applicata
Codice ID:6267
Depositato il:03 Nov 2014 13:30
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

AA.VV. (2006). Enciclopedia Filosofica. Milano: Bompiani. Cerca con Google

Adams M. D. (2005). Knowing when Disagreement are Deep. Informal Logic, 25(1), 65-77. Cerca con Google

Ajello, A. M. (1997). La prospettiva pedagogica nello studio dei processi sociali a scuola. In C. Pontecorvo, A. M. Ajello & C. Zucchermaglio (Eds.), Discutendo s’impara. Interazione sociale e conoscenza a scuola (pp. 39-52). Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Cerca con Google

Ajello, A. M., Cevoli, M., & Meghnagi, S. (1992). La competenza esperta: sapere professionale e contesti di lavoro. Roma: Ediesse. Cerca con Google

Akerman, R., & Neale, I., (2011). Debating the Evidence: an International Review of Current Situation and Perceptions. Research Syntesis. The English-Speaking Union. Retrieved from http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/ESU_Report_ Vai! Cerca con Google

debatingtheevidence_FINAL.pdf Cerca con Google

Alden, R. MacD. (1900). The Art of Debate. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Cerca con Google

Allen M., Berkowitz S., Hunt S. & Louden, A. (1999). A Meta-analysis of the Impact of Forensics and Communication Education on Critical Thinking. Communication Education, 48(1), 18-30. Cerca con Google

Amina, C. (2004). Conflitto e armonia nel pensiero cinese dell’età classica: il trattato sui riti di Xunzi. Padova: Unipress. Cerca con Google

Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and Learning Argument. London: Casselli. Cerca con Google

Angelelli, I. (1970). The Techniques of Disputation in the History of Logic. The Journal of Philosophy 67, 800-815. Cerca con Google

Antonini, D., & Park, H., (2007). Personality, Reciprocity, and Strength of Conflict Resolution Strategy. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 110-125. Cerca con Google

Arielli, E., & Scotto, G. (2003). Conflitti e mediazione. Milano: Mondadori. Cerca con Google

Aristotele (1996). Retorica. (Dorati, M., Trad.). Milano: Mondadori. Cerca con Google

Aristotele (2003). Topici. In G. Colli (Trad.), Organon (pp. 407-643). Milano: Adelphi. Cerca con Google

Aristotele (2002). Le confutazioni sofistiche. (Zanatta, M., Trad.). Milano: RCS, Milano. Cerca con Google

Asch S. E. (1951). Effect of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Eds.), Groups, Leadership, and Men: Research in Human Relations (pp- 177-190). New York: Russel and Russel. Cerca con Google

Aureli, F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Why Natural Conflict Resolution? In F. Aureli and F. B. M. de Waal, Natural Conflict Resolution (pp. 3-9). Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Cerca con Google

Axsom D., Yates, S. & Chaiken S. (1987). Audience Response as a Heuristic Cue in Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 30-40. Cerca con Google

Backer, T. (2010). Teaching Debate in Chile: “Age of Wisdom, Season of Light, Spring of Hope”. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/35530841/ Vai! Cerca con Google

Teaching-Debate-in-Chile-2010-Thomas-Baker. Cerca con Google

Baker, S. & Martinson, D. L. (2001). The TARES Test: Five Principles for Ethical Persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16, 148-175. Cerca con Google

Banzato, M., & Minello, R. (2002). Imparare insieme. Laboratorio di didattica dell’apprendimento cooperativo. Roma: Armando Editore. Cerca con Google

Barnard, R. (1937), The Evils of High School Debating. The Clearing House, 12(4), 211-213. Cerca con Google

Bellon, J. (2000). A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36(3), 161-175. Cerca con Google

Benet-Martinez, Kim-Jo, T., & Ozer, J. D. (2010). Culture and Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Styles: Role of Acculturation (2010). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), 264-296. Cerca con Google

Berti. E. (2001). Storia della filosofia. Antichità e Medioevo. Bari: Laterza. Cerca con Google

Berube, D. (2005). Debate and Professional Training. Retrieved from http://www.wcdebate.com/4coach/71defendberube.htm Vai! Cerca con Google

Bianchi, L. (Ed.). (1997). La filosofia nelle università: secoli XIII-XIV. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Cerca con Google

Black, N. C., Mills, P. R., & Forde, D. R. (2009). An Assessment of University of Alabama Students' Reasoning about Social Problems. The University of Alabama McNair Journal. Retrieved from http://graduate.ua.edu/mcnair/ Vai! Cerca con Google

journals/2009/Black.pdf Cerca con Google

Blair, J. A. (1988). What is Bias?. In T. Govier (Ed.), Selected Issues in Logic and Communication (pp. 93-103). Belmont: Wadsworth. Cerca con Google

Blair, J. A. (1995). The Place of Teaching Informal Fallacies in Teaching Reasoning Skills or Critical Thinking. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp. 328-338). University Park: Pennsylvania State press. Cerca con Google

Blair, J. A. (2006). Teaching Argument Evaluation Using Fallacies. Controversia, 5(1), 13-33. Cerca con Google

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1969). The Managerial Grid. Huston: Gulf Publishing Company. Cerca con Google

Bombi, A.S. & Cannoni, E. (2000). Disegnare le relazioni. In A.S. Bombi e G. Pinto (Eds.), Le relazioni interpersonali del bambino: studiare la socialità infantile con il disegno (pp. 31-46). Roma: Carocci. Cerca con Google

Boniolo G., & Vidali P. (2002). Strumenti per ragionare. Milano: Mondadori. Cerca con Google

Bonomo H., Mamberti J. M., & Miller J. B. (2010). Tolerancia crítica y ciudadanía actia. Una introducción prática al debate educativo. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Borisoff, D., & Victor, D. A. (1998). Conflict Management. A Communication Skills Approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cerca con Google

Bottecchia, C. (2009). Palestra di botta e risposta”: riflessioni su un percorso didattico. In A., Cattani, P., Cantù, I., Testa, P., Vidali (Eds.), La svolta argomentativa. 50 anni dopo Perelman e Toulmin (pp. 223-234). Casoria: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

Bottecchia C. (2011). Palestra di Botta e Risposta: un percorso di autentico arricchimento formativo. In A. Cattani (a cura di), Argomentare le proprie ragioni. Organizzare, condurre e valutare un dibattito (pp. 139-151), Casoria: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

Branham R. (1991). Debate and Critical Analysis: the Harmony of Conflict. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cerca con Google

Brimble, J., & Pritchard, D. (2003). Guide to Debating: the Principles and Practice of Debate. Pontypridd: University of Glamorgan. Cerca con Google

Bromley, S. (1918). The Father of Debate: Protagoras of Abdera. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 4(2), 196-215; Cerca con Google

Brucker J. J. (1975), Historia critica philosophiae a mundi incunabulis ad nostram usque aetatem deducta, Breitkopf: Lipsiae, 1742-1744. Cerca con Google

Bruschke, J., & Johnson, A. (1994). An Analysis of Difference in Success Rates of Male and Female Debaters. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30(3), 162-173. Cerca con Google

Budesheim T. L., & Lundquist A. R. (1999). Consider the Opposite: Opening Minds Trough In-Class Debates on Course-Related Controversies. Teaching of Psychology, 26(2), 106-110. Cerca con Google

Burnett, A., Brand, J., & Meister, M. (2001). Forensic Education? How the Structure and Discourse of Forensic Promotes Competition. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(2), 106-114. Cerca con Google

Burnett, A., Brand, J., & Meister, M. (2003). Winning is Everything: Education as Myth in Forensics. The National Forensic Journal, 21(1), 12-23. Cerca con Google

Cai, A. D., & Fink, L. E. (2002). Conflict Style Differences Between Individualists and Collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 67-87. Cerca con Google

Cambi, F. (2004). Saperi e competenze. Roma: Laterza. Cerca con Google

Cantore, P. (1855). Verbum Abbreviatum. Paris: Migne. (Original work XII sec.) Cerca con Google

Cantù, P. & Testa, I. (2006). Teorie dell’argomentazione. Un’introduzione alle logiche del dialogo. Milano: Mondadori. Cerca con Google

Capra, A. (2001). Agon Logon. Il «Protagora» di Platone tra eristica e commedia. Milano, LED. Cerca con Google

Cardoso, M. A., & Comoglio, M. (2006). Insegnare e apprendere in gruppo. Il Cerca con Google

Castelfranchi, C., & Paglieri, F. (2010). Why Argue? Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Argumentation. Argument and Computation, 1(1), 71-91. Cerca con Google

Cattani, A. (2001). Botta e risposta. L’arte della replica. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cerca con Google

Cattani, A. (2008). La disputa filosofica: ragion d’essere di un progetto. In S., Nicolli & A., Cattani (Eds.), Palestra di botta e risposta. La disputa filosofica come formazione al dibattito nella scuola (pp. 8-12). Padova: Cleup.. Cerca con Google

Cattani A. (2010). Status. L. Vega, & P. Olmos (Eds.), Compendio de Lógica, Argumentación y Retorica. Madrid: Trotta. Cerca con Google

Cattani, A. (2011). 50 discorsi ingannevoli. Argomenti per difendersi, attaccare, divertirsi. Padova: GB Edizioni. Cerca con Google

Cattani, A. (2012). Dibattito. Diritti e doveri, regole e mosse. Napoli: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

Chaiken S., Wood, W. & Eagly A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702-742): New York, Guilford. Cerca con Google

Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187-217. Cerca con Google

Cicerone (2001). Dell’Oratore. Milano: R.C.S. Libri. Cerca con Google

Claxton, N. (2008). Deliberating Across the Curriculum. Using Deliberative Tecniques in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Clem. Str. (2008). VI 65 (II 464, 14 St.). In M. Bonazzi (Ed.), I Sofisti (pp. 111-113). Milano: BUR. Cerca con Google

Clemens, H. (2007 November). New Rules: Informing Debate and Forensics Pedagogy with Pragma-Dialectics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association 93rd Annual Convention, Chicago. Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_ Vai! Cerca con Google

citation/1/9/0/7/5/pages190754/p190754-1.php Cerca con Google

Cocco, G., & Tiberio A. (2002). Lo sviluppo delle competenze relazionali in ambito sociosanitario. Comunicazione, lavoro di gruppo e team building. Milano: Franco Angeli. Cerca con Google

Colbert, K (1992). Why Should We Support Debate? In D., Thomas, & J. P.,Hart, (Eds.), Advanced Debate. Redings in Theory, Practice & Teaching (pp. 2-7). National Textbook Company: Lincolnwood. Cerca con Google

Colbert K. R. (1995). Enhancing Critical Thinking Ability Through Academic Debate. Comtemporary Argumentation and Debate, 16, 52-72. Cerca con Google

Coleman, S., Gerson, J., & Raider, E. (2000). Teaching Conflict Resolution Skills in a Workshop. In M., Deutsch, & P. T., Coleman (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Theory and Practice (pp. 499-521). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cerca con Google

Combs, H. W. & Bourne, S. G. (1994). The Renaissance of Educational Debate: Results of a Five-Year Study of the Use of Debate in Business Education. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(1), 57-67. Cerca con Google

Commissione Europea (2010). Il comunicato di Bruges su una maggiore cooperazione europea in materia di istruzione e formazione professionale per il periodo 2011-2020. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/ Vai! Cerca con Google

lifelong-learning-policy/doc/vocational/bruges_it.pdf Cerca con Google

Conee, E. (2010). Rational Disagreement Defended. In R. Feldman & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 69-90). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Copi, M. I., & Cohen, C. (1997). Introduzione alla logica. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cerca con Google

Cox, E. S., & Adams, W. C. (1993). An answer to the Call for Experimentation by the CEDA Assessment Conference: A Descriptive Study of a Peer-Judged Round. CEDA Yearbook, 14, 34-53. Cerca con Google

Cousinet, R. (1971). Un metodo di lavoro libero per gruppi. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Cerca con Google

Crawshay-Williams R. (1957). Methods and Criteria of Reasoning. An Inquiry into the Structure of Controversy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Cerca con Google

Cronin, M. (1990 April). Debating to Learn Across the curriculum: Implementation and Assessment. Paper presented at the Southern States Communication Association Convention, Alabama. Cerca con Google

Darwin, C. (2009). L’origine delle specie. Torino: Einaudi. (Original work 1859). Cerca con Google

Dascal, M. (2011) Dichotomies and Types of Debate. In F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory (pp. 21-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Cerca con Google

Dascal, M. & Knoll, A (2011). ‘Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization’ in Public Argumentation and Controversies. In F. Zenker (Ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community (pp. 1-35). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor [CD-ROM]. Cerca con Google

De Conti, M. (2009). Palestra di botta e risposta 2008/2009: procedure e strategie. In A., Cattani, P., Cantù, I., Testa, P., Vidali (Eds.), La svolta argomentativa. 50 anni dopo Perelman e Toulmin (pp. 235-246). Casoria: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

De Sa, L. (2010). How to Respond to Borderline Cases. In R., Dietz, & S., Moruzzi (Eds.), Cuts and Clouds (pp. 327-339). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a Peaceful World. American Psychologist, 48(5), 510-517. Cerca con Google

Devson-Galle P. (1992). Arguing, Arguments, and Deep Disagreements. Informal Logic, 14(2 & 3), 147-156. Cerca con Google

Dewey, J. (1961). Come pensiamo: una riformulazione del rapporto fra pensiero riflessivo e l’educazione. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Cerca con Google

Di Blasio, P., & Redemagni, E. (1992). Il comportamento prosociale nell’adolescenza . In P. Di Blasio, & L. Venini (Eds.), Competenze cognitive e sociali: processi di interazione e modelli di sviluppo (pp. 165-182). Milano: Vita e pensiero. Cerca con Google

Di Norcia, A. (2006). Valutare la competenza sociale nei bambini. Roma: Carocci. Cerca con Google

Dickson, R. (2004). Developing “Real-World Intelligence”: Teaching Argumentative Writing trough Debate. English Journal, 94(1), 34-40. Cerca con Google

Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1980). A Comparison of the 'Prompting Effect' of Out-of-School with that of In-School Contexts on Certain Aspects of Critical Thinking. European Journal of Science Education, 2(3), 301-310. Cerca con Google

Duffin, F. (2006). Collaborative Discourse: Debate Across the Curriculum. Research and Practice in Social Sciences, 2(1), 16-39. Cerca con Google

Eco U. (1975). Il segno. Milano: Istituto Editoriale Internazionale ISEDI. Cerca con Google

Eemeren van, H. F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and Judgmentts of Reasonableness. Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Dordrecht: Springer. Cerca con Google

Eemeren van, H. F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). The Disguised Abusive Ad Hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic Manoeuvering with Direct Personal Attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 344-364. Cerca con Google

Eemeren F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analisys of Discussion Directed Toward Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dodrecht/Providence: Foris Publications. Cerca con Google

Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283-301. Cerca con Google

Eemeren F.H. van, & Grootendorst R. (1988). Rationale for pragma-dialectic perspective. Argumentation, 2(2), 271-291. Cerca con Google

Eemeren, van F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. New Jersey-London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cerca con Google

Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Eemeren van, H. F., Grootendorst, R., Meuffels, B., e Verburg, M. (2000). The (Un)Reasonableness of Ad Hominem Fallacies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 416-435. Cerca con Google

Eemeren, van F., Grootendorst, R. & Henkemans, F. S. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. London: Mahwah. Cerca con Google

Eemeren, van F., Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht-Holland/Providence-U.S.A: Foris. Cerca con Google

Eemeren, van F., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa-London: The University of Alabama Press. Cerca con Google

Eemeren, van F., Grootendorst, R. & Straaten, van P., (2009). L’argomentazione a fumetti. Corso accelerato in 20 lezioni. Milano-Udine: Mimesis-Il quadrato delle opposizioni. Cerca con Google

Ehninger, D (1952). Six Earmarks of a Sound Forensics Program. The Speech Teacher, 1(4), 237-241. Cerca con Google

Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1978). Decision by Debate. New York: Harper and Row. Cerca con Google

Eilerman, D. (2006). The Use and Misuse of an Avoiding Style in conflict Management. Retrieved from: http://www.mediate.com/articles/ Vai! Cerca con Google

eilermanD6.cfm. Cerca con Google

Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and Disagreement. Nous, 41(3), 478-502. Cerca con Google

Elga, A. (2010), How to Disagree about How to Disagree. In R. Feldman, & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 175-186). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Elgin, C. Z. (2010). Persistent Disagreement. In R. Feldman, & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 53-68). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Elster, J. (2005). Argomentare e negoziare. Milano: Mondadori, Milano. Cerca con Google

Ennis, R. H., Gardier, W. L., Morrow, R., Paulus, D., & Ringel, L. (1964). The Cornell Class Reasoning Text. Retreived from http://faculty.education. Vai! Cerca con Google

illinois.edu/rhennis/cornellclassreas.pdf Cerca con Google

Ericson, J. M., Murphy, J. J., & Zeuschner, R. B. (2003). The Debater’s Guide, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,. Cerca con Google

Estaville L. E. Jr. (1988). Debate: A Teaching Strategy for Geography. Journal of Geography, 87(1), 2-5. Cerca con Google

Facione, P. A. (1987). Teaching About Fallacies. Teaching Philosophy, 10(3), 211-217. Cerca con Google

Fahim, M., & Sa’eepour, M. (2011). The Imppact of Teaching Critical Thinking Skills on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 867-874. Cerca con Google

Falbe, C., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for Managers of Using Single Influence Tactics and Combinations of Tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638-652. Cerca con Google

Falduti, R. (2009). La pratica dell’argomentazione nella scuola: il progetto “Palestra di botta e risposta” nell’anno scolastico 2007/2008. In A., Cattani, P., Cantù, I., Testa, P., Vidali (Eds.), La svolta argomentativa. 50 anni dopo Perelman e Toulmin (pp. 211-222). Casoria: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

Falduti, R. (2011). Palestra di botta e risposta al microscopio: considerazioni teorico-pratiche e analisi di una disputa. In A. Cattani (Ed.), Argomentare le proprie ragioni. Organizzare, condurre e valutare un dibattito (pp. 153-183). Casoria: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

Fedrizzi, M. & Ellis, R. (2011). Debate. Ohio: South-Western Cenage Learning. Cerca con Google

Feldman R. (2005). Deep Disagreement, Rational Resolutions, and Critical Thinking. Informal Logic, 25(1), 13-23. Cerca con Google

Felipe, D. L. (1991). Post Medieval Ars Disputandi. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Texas. Retrieved from: http://disputatioproject.files. Vai! Cerca con Google

wordpress.com/2011/01/post-medieval-ars-disputandi.pdf Cerca con Google

Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus Dispute: The Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417-446. Cerca con Google

Fine, G. A. (2001). Gifted Tongues. High School Debate and Adolescent Culture. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Cerca con Google

Fogelin, J. R. (1985). The Logic of Deep Disagreements. Informal Logic, 7(1), 1-8. Cerca con Google

Fordham, B. O. (2005). Strategic Conflict Avoidance and the Diversionary Use of Force. The Journal of Politics, 67(1), 132-153. Cerca con Google

Foster, D. E. (2004). In Defense of Argument Culture: A Response to Recent Criticism Against the Use of Adversarial Debate as a Method of Societal Decision-Making. The Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta, 89, 13-29. Cerca con Google

Fotiu, R. (n.d.). Item Analysis. Retrieved from: https://www.msu.edu/dept/soweb/ Vai! Cerca con Google

itanhand.html Cerca con Google

Frances, B. (2011). Disagreement. In S., Bernecker, & D., Pritchard, (Eds.), Routledge Companion to Epistemology (pp. 68-74). New York: Routledge. Cerca con Google

Frank, L. R. (1983). The Abuse of Evidence in Persuasive Speaking. The National Forensic Journal. 1, 97-107. Cerca con Google

Freddoso, A. J., & Kelley, F. E., (Eds.). (1991). Quodlibetal Questions of William of Ockham. New Haven : Yale University Press. Cerca con Google

Freeley, A. J. (1961). Argumentation and Debate. Rational Decision Making. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1961. Cerca con Google

Freeman, J. B. (2011). Can Argumentation Really Deal With Dissensus? In F. H. van Eemeren, et al., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 510-521), Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic-Sat. Cerca con Google

Friedley, S. A. (1983). Ethics and Evidence Usage: Current ‘Codes’ in Individual Events. The National Forensic Journal, 1(2), 109-117. Cerca con Google

Friedley, S. A., & Manchester, B. B. (1985). An analysis of Male/Female Participation at Select National Championships. The National Forensic Journal, 3, 1-12. Cerca con Google

Friedman, R. A., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact of Interpersonal Conflict Style on Work Conflict and Stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32-55. Cerca con Google

Friemann R. (2005). Emotional Backing and the Feeling of Deep Disagreement. Informal Logic, 25(1), 51-63. Cerca con Google

Fritz, G. (2008). Communicatin Principles for Controversies: A Historical Perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.). Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory (pp. 109-124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Fuentes B. C. & Santibáñez Y. C. (2011). Desegñando debates: preliminares para un enfoque dialógico y crítico. In A. Cattani (Ed.), Argomentare le proprie ragioni. Organizzare, condurre e valutare un dibattito (pp. 111-137). Casoria: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

Fumerton, R. (2010). You Can’t Trust a Philosopher. In R. Feldman, & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 91-110). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Furgerson, J. (2013). Research Skill Acquisition in Competitive Forensics: A Pathway for Demonstrating Programmatic Value. Rostrum, 88(2), 46-48. Cerca con Google

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research. 27(3), 291-305. Cerca con Google

Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means. Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. London: Sage. Cerca con Google

Galtung, J. (2000). Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (The Transcend Method). United Nation Disaster Management Training Programme. Retrieved from http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwt.nsf/db900SID/LHON-66SN46/$File/Conflict_transfo_Trnascend.pdf Vai! Cerca con Google

Galtung, J. (2008). Affrontare il conflitto. Trascendere e trasformare. Pisa: Pisa University Press. Cerca con Google

Garrett, M., Schoener, L., & Hood, L. (1996). Debate: A Teaching Strategy to Improve Verbal Communication and Critical-Thinking Skills. Nurse Educator, 21(4), 37-40. Cerca con Google

Gigli, A. (2000). Esplorare i conflitti in gruppo: un’esperienza di formazione. In M. Contini (Ed.), Il gruppo educativo. Luogo di scontri e apprendimenti (pp. 91- 134). Roma: Carocci. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, M. A. (2000). Agreement/Disagreement. In H. Hansen & C. Tindale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, M. A. (1994a). Feminism, Argumentation and Coalescence. Informal Logic, 16(2), 95-113. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, M. A. (1994b). Multi-Modal Argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 24(2), 159-177. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, M. A. (1995a). Arguments and Arguers. Teaching Philosophy, 18(2), 125-138. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, M. A. (1995b). Coalescent Argumentation. Argumentation, 9(5), 837-852. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, M. A. (1997). Coalescent Argumentation. Mahawah : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, M. A. (2011). The Kisceral: Reason and Intuition in Argumentation. Argumentation, 25, 163-170. Cerca con Google

Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and roles of third parties. In G. B. J. Bomers et al. (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 119-140). The Hague: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing. Cerca con Google

Glasl, F. (1997). Confronting Conflict. A First-Aid Kit for Handling Conflict. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press. Cerca con Google

Glick-Smith, J. L. (2007). Conflict Styles and Technical Communicatiors. Intercom, July/August, 20-48. Retrieved from https://www.cpp.com/Pdfs/ Vai! Cerca con Google

Intercom_Magazine_TKI_and_Conflict.pdf Cerca con Google

Godden, D. M., & Brenner, W. H. (2010). Wittgenstein and the Logic of Deep Disagreement. Cogency, 2(2), 41-80. Cerca con Google

Goethals, G. R. & Reckman R. F. (1973). The Perception of Consistency in Attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 491-501. Cerca con Google

Golder, C., & Pouit, D. (1999). For a Debate to Take Place the Topic Must Be Debatable. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Founfations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp. 137-148). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Cerca con Google

Goodnight, L. (1987). Getting Started in Debate. Illinois: National Textbook Company. Cerca con Google

Goodnight, G. T., & Mitchell, G. R. (2008). Forensics as Scholarship: Testing Zarefsky’s Bold Hypothesis in a Digital Age. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45, 80-97. Cerca con Google

Green, C. S. & Klug, H. G. (1990). Teaching critical Thinking and Writing Through Debates: An Experimental Evaluation. Teaching Sociology, 18(4), 462-471. Cerca con Google

Greenstreet, R (1993). Academic Debate and Critical Thinking: A Look at the Evidence. The National Forensic Journal, 11, 13-28. Cerca con Google

Griffin, S. (1997). Fair Play: Teaching the Logical Fallacies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Phoenix. Cerca con Google

Hamblin, G. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen & Co. Cerca con Google

Hample, D., Benoit, P. J., Houston, J., Purifoy, G., VanHilfte, V., & Wardwell, C. (1999). Naïve Theories of Argument: Avoiding Interpersonal Arguments or Cutting Them Short. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 130-139. Cerca con Google

Hample, D., Sells, A. & Velàsquez, A. L. I. (2009). The Effect of Topic Type and Personalization of Conflict on Assessments of Fallacies. Communication Reports, 22(2), 74-88. Cerca con Google

Hegel, G. W. F. (2008). Fenomenologia dello spirito. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura. (Original Work 1807). Cerca con Google

Hensley, D., & Carlin, D. (1994). Mastering Competitive Debate. Kansas: Carl Publishing. Cerca con Google

Hill, B. (1982). Intercollegiate Debate: Why Do Students Bother? The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48(1), 77-88. Cerca con Google

Hill, B. (1993). The Value of Competitive Debate as a Vehicle for Promoting Development of Critical Thiking Ability. CEDA Yearbook, 14, 1-23. Cerca con Google

Hitchcock, D. (1995). Do the Fallacies Have a Place in the Teaching of Reasoning Skills or Critical Thinking? In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp. 319-327). University Park: Pennsylvania State press. Cerca con Google

Hobbes, T. (2002). De Cive. Roma: Editori riuniti. (Original work. 1642). Cerca con Google

Hoffman, M. L., (1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation. Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 607-622. Cerca con Google

Holberg L. (1994). Il viaggio sotterraneo di Niels Klim. Milano: Adelphi. Cerca con Google

Hoyle R. H. (1999). Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cerca con Google

Huber, R. B., & Snider, C. A. (2006). Influencing through Argument. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Huckfeldt R., Johnson P. E. & Sprague J. (2004). Political Disagreement. The Survival of Diverse Opinion Within Communication Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Hundleby, C. E. (2010). The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation. Informal Logic, 30(3), 279-308. Cerca con Google

Huryn, J. S. (1986). Debating as a Teaching Technique. Teaching Sociology. 14, 266-269; Cerca con Google

Hyde, B., & Bineham, J. L. (2000). From Debate to Dialogue: Toward a Pedagogy of Nonpolarized Public Discourse. Southern Communication Journal, 65(2-3), 208-223. Cerca con Google

Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, P. E. & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The Relationship of Argumentativeness to Verbal Aggression. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50(1), 67-77. Cerca con Google

Inoue, N. e Nakano, M. (2011). The Benefits and Costs of Participating in Competitive Debate Activities. In J. P. Zompetti (Ed.), Reasoned Rationales. Exploring the Educational Value of Debate (pp. 123-140). New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Jackson, S. (1996). Fallacies and Heuristics. In J. van Benthem, F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst & F. Veltman (Eds.), Logic and Argumentation (pp. 101-114). North-Holland: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Cerca con Google

Jackson, S. (2002). Designing Argumentation Protocols for the Classroom. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 105-119). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Cerca con Google

Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (1980). Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(3), 251-265. Cerca con Google

Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (1981). The collaborative Production of Proposals in Conversational Argument and Persuasion: a Study of Disagreement Regulation. Journal of American Forensic Association, 18, 77-90. Cerca con Google

Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach. In R. Cox, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research (pp. 205-237). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Cerca con Google

Jacobs, S. (1987). The Management of Disagreement in Conversation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. J. Blair, & C. A., Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (pp. 229-239). Dordrecht-Providence: Foris. Cerca con Google

Jacobs, S. (1989). Speech Acts and Arguments. Argumentation, 3(4), 345-365. Cerca con Google

Jevremovič, V., (2006). Negotiation Models as Tools for Teaching Business English. Inter Alia, 2, 58-68. Cerca con Google

Johnson A. J., Averbeck, J. M., Kelley, K. M., & Liu, S. (2011). When Serial Arguments Predict Harm: Examining the Influences of Argument Function, Topic of the Argument, Perceived Resolvability, And Argumentativeness. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(4), 214-227. Cerca con Google

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom Conflict: Controversy Versus Debate in Learning Groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 237-256. Cerca con Google

Johnson D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1992), Creative Controversy. Intellectual Challenge In The Classroom. Minnesota: Interaction Book Company. Cerca con Google

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Constructive Conflict in the Schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 117-137. Cerca con Google

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005). Leadership e apprendimento cooperativo. Condividere le idee, ridurre le tensioni, dare energia al gruppo: esercizi e attività. Trento: Erickson, Trento. Cerca con Google

Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive Controversy. The Value of Intellectual Opposition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Ed.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Theory and Practice (pp. 69-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cerca con Google

Johnstone H . W. Jr. (1954a). Some Aspect of Philosophical Disagreement. Dialectica, 245-257. Cerca con Google

Johnstone H. W. Jr., (1954b). The Nature of Philosophical Controversy. The Journal of Philosophy, 51, 294-300. Cerca con Google

Johnstone H. W. Jr. (1959). Philosophy and Argument. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Cerca con Google

Jørgensen, C. (1998). Public Debate - An Act of Hostility? Argumentation, 12(4), 431-443. Cerca con Google

Katz, D. (1960). The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitude. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163-204. Cerca con Google

Keenan, C. J. (2009). Intercollegiate Debate: Reflecting American Culture, 1900-1930. Argumentation and Advocacy, 46, 79-97. Cerca con Google

Kelly, T. (2005). The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. In J., Hawthorne, & T., Gendler, (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology (pp. 167-196). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cerca con Google

Kelly, T. (2010). Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence In R. Feldman, & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 111-174). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Kennedy, K. A. & Pronin, E. (2008). When Disagreement Gets Ugly: Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bullettin, 34(6), 833-848. Cerca con Google

Kennedy, K. A., & Pronin, E. (2012). Bias Perception and the Spiral of Conflict. In J. Hanson (Ed.), Ideology, Psychology and Law. Series in Political Psychology (pp. 410-446). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Kennedy, R. (2007). In-Class Debates: Fertile Ground for Active Learning and the Cultivation of Critical Thinking and Oral Communication Skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 183-190. Cerca con Google

Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a Forced-Choice Measure of Conflict-Handling Behavior: the “Mode” Instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 309-325. Cerca con Google

Kobanoff, B., & Vliert, E. van de (1990). Toward Theory Based Measures of Conflict Management. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 199-209. Cerca con Google

Koehle, J. (2010). Reuniting Old Friends: The Spèhists and Academic Debate. Advances in Communication Theory and Research, 3. Cerca con Google

Kölbel, M. (2004a). Faultless Disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 104, 53-73. Cerca con Google

Kölbel, M. (2004b). Indexical Relativism versus Genuine Relativism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 12(3), 297-313. Cerca con Google

Korcok, M. (1997). The Effects of Intercollegiate Debating on Critical Thinking Ability. Florida State University. Retrieved from http://mailer.fsu.edu Vai! Cerca con Google

/~ewotring/com5312/critical.html Cerca con Google

Kraft, J. (2009). An Externalist, Contextualist Epistemology of Disagreement about Religion. Ars Disputandi, 9, 11-30. Cerca con Google

Kraus, M. (2011). Cultural Diversity, Cognitive Breaks and Deep Disagreement: Polemic Argument. In F. H. van, Eemeren, et al., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1036-1049). Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Rozenberg/Sic-Sat. Cerca con Google

Kronblith, H. (2010). Belief in the Face of Controversy. In R. Feldman, & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 29-52). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentative Reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315. Cerca con Google

Laerzio, D. (2005). In G. Reale, (Ed.), Vita e dottrine dei più celebri filosofi. Milano: Bompiani. Cerca con Google

Langsdorf, L. (2003). Argumentation, Conflict and Teaching Citizens: Remarks on a Theme in Recent Dewey Scholarship. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 214-221. Cerca con Google

Lao, J., & Kuhn, D., (1996). Effects of Evidence on Attitudes: Is Polarization the Norm? Psychological Science, 7(2), 115-120. Cerca con Google

Le Boterf, G. (2008). Costruire le competenze individuali e collettive. Agire e riuscire con competenza. Le rosposte a 100 domande. Napoli: Guida. Cerca con Google

Lewin, K. (1972). I conflitti sociali: saggi di dinamica di gruppo. Milano: Franco Angeli. Cerca con Google

Lewin, M. L., & Wakefield, J. A. (1983). Teaching Psycology Trough an Instructor-Debate Format. Teaching of Psycology, 10(2), 115-116. Cerca con Google

Littlefield R. S. (2001). High School Student Perception of the Efficacy of Debate Participation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 83-97. Cerca con Google

Liu, Y. (2008). Justifying My Position in Your Terms: Cross-Cultural Argumentation in a Globalized World. In A. J., Aguayo, & T. R. Steffensmeier (Eds.), Readings on Argumentation (pp. 217-232). State Colege: Strata Publishing. Cerca con Google

Locke, C. (2007). Chinese Methods of Interpersonal Conflict. School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA470802e Vai! Cerca con Google

Location=U2edoc=GetTRDoc.pdf Cerca con Google

Lord G. C., Ross L. & Lepper R. M. (1979). Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: the Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109. Cerca con Google

Lord, G. C., Lepper, R. M., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the Opposite: A Corrective Strategy for Social Judgment. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 46(6), 1231-1243. Cerca con Google

MacFarlane, J. (2009 May). Varieties of Disagreement. Speech at the University College Dublin, Institute of Philosophy, London. Cerca con Google

Madsen, A. (1990). Graduate Students and Forensic Research. The National Forensic Journal, 8, 45-49. Cerca con Google

Magnus, M. H. (2000). Using a Debate to Teach Food Aid. Journal of Nutrition Education, 32(2), 119-120. Cerca con Google

Mareli, J. (2011). The Classroom Debate as a Critical Thinking Strategy. Queen’s Pedagogy Commons, 1(2), 11-17. Cerca con Google

Marietta-Brown, A. (2011). As Seen on TV: Teaching Fallacies Through Infomercials. Communication Teacher, 25(3), 127-130. Cerca con Google

Markus, G. B. (1986). Stability and Change in Political Attitudes: Observed, Recalled, and “Explained”. Political Behavior, 8(1), 21-44. Cerca con Google

Marx, K., e Engles, F. (2009). Il manifesto del partito comunista. Firenze: Giunti Demetra. (Original work 1848). Cerca con Google

Marttunen, M. (1992). Commenting on Written Arguments as a Part of Argumentation Skills – Comparison Between Students Engaged in Traditional vs On-line. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 289-302. Cerca con Google

McElligot, J. (1855). The American Debater. New York: Ivison & Phinney. Cerca con Google

Meany, J., & Schuster, K. (2002). Art, Argument and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Meany, J. & Shuster K. (2003). On That Point! An Introduction to Parliamentary Debate. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Meghnagi, S. (1992). Conoscenza e competenza. Torino: Loescher, Torino. Cerca con Google

Memedi, V. (2007). Resolving Deep Disagreement, In H. Hansen & C. Tindale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1-10). Cerca con Google

Meurs, N. van, & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2009). Multidisciplinary perspectives on Intercultural Conflict: the “Bermuda Triangle” of Conflict, Culture and Communication. In H. Kotthoff, & H., Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Communication (pp. 99-120), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cerca con Google

Mezuk, B. (2009). Urban Debate and High School Educational Outcomes for African American Males: The Case of the Chicago Debate League. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 290-304. Cerca con Google

Mezuk, B., Bondarenko, I., Smith, S. & Tucker, E. (2011). Impact of Participating in a Policy Debate Program on Academic Achievement: Evidence from the Chicago Urban Debate League. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 622-635. Cerca con Google

Mill, J. S. (1846). A System of Logic. New York: Harper & Brothers. Cerca con Google

Mill, J. S. (1981). Saggio sulla libertà. Milano: Il Saggiatore. Cerca con Google

Mill, S. J. (1992). On Liberty and Utilitarianism. London: David Campbell Publisher. Cerca con Google

Mitchell, C. (1981). The structure of International Conflict. New York: St. Martin Press. Cerca con Google

Mitchell, G. R. (1998). Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35(2), 41-60. Cerca con Google

Mitchell, G. R. (2000). Simulated Public Argument as a Pedagogical Play on Worlds. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36(3), 134-150. Cerca con Google

Mitchell, G. R., Woods, C. S., Brigham, M., English, E., Morrison, C. E., & Rief, J. (2010). The Debate Authors Working Gropup Model for Collaborative Knowledge Production in Forensic Scholarship. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 1-24. Cerca con Google

Mizzau, M. (1974). Prospettive della comunicazione interpersonale. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cerca con Google

Mizzau, M. (2002). E tu allora? Il conflitto nella comunicazione quotidiana. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cerca con Google

Moeller, T. G. (1985). Using Classroom Debates in Teaching Developmental Psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 12(4) 207-209. Cerca con Google

Mondin, B. (1996). Storia della teologia. Bologna: ESD, Vol. II. Cerca con Google

Morse, A. E., Savage, T. G., & Soreson, R. L. (1999). A Test of the Motivations Underlying Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-Concern Model. The International Journal of conflict Management, 10(1), 25-44. Cerca con Google

Motterlini, M. (2008). Trappole Mentali. Milano: BUR. Cerca con Google

Moulin, L. (1992). La vita degli studenti nel medioevo. Milano: Jaca Book. Cerca con Google

Moulton J. (1983). A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method. In S. Harding, & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science pp. 149-164. Dordrecht: Reidel. Cerca con Google

Mulholland, J., (1996). The Language of Negotiation. A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Improving Communication. New York: Routledge. Cerca con Google

Munduate, L., Luque, P., & Barón, M. (1997). Style of Handling Interpersonal Conflict: an Observational Study. Psichotema, 9(1), 145-153. Cerca con Google

Neuman, Y. (2003). Go Ahead, Prove that God Does not Exsist! On High School Students' Ability to Deal With Fallacious Arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13, 367-380. Cerca con Google

Neuman, Y., Glassner, A., & Weinstock, M. (2004). The effect of a reason's truth-value on the judgment of a fallacious argument. Achta Psychologica, 116, 173-184. Cerca con Google

Neuman, Y., & Weizman, E. (2003). The Role of Text Representation in Students' Ability to Identify Fallacious Arguments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(A), 33-60. Cerca con Google

Newstead, S. E., Pollard, P., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Allen, J. L. (1992). The Source of Belief Bias Effects in Syllogistic Reasoning. Cognition, 45(3), 257-248. Cerca con Google

Nichols, E. R. (1936a). A Historical Sketch of Intercollegiate Debating: I. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 22(2), 213-220. Cerca con Google

Nichols, E. R. (1936b). A Historical Sketch of Intercollegiate Debating: II. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 22(4), 591-602. Cerca con Google

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. Cerca con Google

Nicolli, S. (2008). Pensare e dibattere filosoficamente nella scuola. In S., Nicolli, & A., Cattani (Eds.), Palestra di botta e risposta. La disputa filosofica come formazione al dibattito nella scuola (pp. 6-7). Padova: CLEUP. Cerca con Google

Nicolli, S. & Cattani A. (Eds.). (2008). Palestra di botta e risposta. La disputa filosofica come formazione al dibattito nella scuola. Padova: CLEUP. Cerca con Google

Novikoff, A. J. (2012). Toward a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation. American Historical Review, 117 (2), 331-364. Cerca con Google

O’Kon, J. & Sutz, R. (2005). Using In-Class Debates to Teach Gender Issues in Psychology. In B. K. Saville, T. E. Zinn, & V. W. Hevern (Eds.), Essays from e-xcellence in teaching (Chap. 8). Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/ Vai! Cerca con Google

ebooks/eit2004/eit04-08.html Cerca con Google

Oakhill, J. V., Johnson-Laird P. N., & Garnham A. (1989). Believability and syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 31, 117-140. Cerca con Google

Orefice, P. (2010). Contesti di apprendimento per le competenze. In C., Xodo, & M., Benetton (Eds.), Che cos’è la competenza? Costrutti epistemologici, pedagogici e deontologici (pp. 55-65). Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia. Cerca con Google

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies. Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02.parsys.43469.downloadList.2296.DownloadFile.tmp/2005.dskcexecutivesummary.en.pdf Vai! Cerca con Google

Orsolini, M. (1993). Il linguaggio argomentativo dei bambini nelle dispute. In C. Pontecorvo (Ed.), La condivisione della conoscenza (pp. 165-185). Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Cerca con Google

Orsolini, M. (1997). La costruzione del discorso nelle discussioni in classe: un’analisi sequenziale. In C. Pontecorvo, A. M. Ajello & C. Zucchermaglio (Eds.), Discutendo s’impara. Interazione sociale e conoscenza a scuola (pp. 111-130). Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Cerca con Google

Othman, J., Rose, R., Suppiah, W., & Uli, J. (2007). A Face Concern Approach to Conflict Management – A Malaysian Perspective. Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 121-126. Cerca con Google

Paglieri, F. (2009). Ruinous Arguments: Escalation of Disagreement and the Dangers of Arguing. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 (pp. 1-15). Windsor: OSSA. Cerca con Google

Paglieri, F. (in press). Choosing to Argue: Toward a Theory of Argumentative Decisions. Journal of Pragmatics. Cerca con Google

Panofsky, E. (1986). Architettura gotica e filosofia scolastica. Napoli: Liguori. Cerca con Google

Parcher J. (1998) The Value of Debate. Retrieved from http://www.principle Vai! Cerca con Google

studies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf Cerca con Google

Pellerey, M. (2004). Le competenze individuali e il portfolio. Milano: La nuova Italia. Cerca con Google

Pellerey, M. (2010). La competenza tra formazione e autoformazione. In A., Porcarelli (Eds.), Formare per competenze. Strategie e buone prassi (23-37), Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia, 2010. Cerca con Google

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2001). Trattato dell’argomentazione. La nuova retorica. Torino: Einaudi. (Original work 1958) Cerca con Google

Perry, L. A. (2002). The Need for a Forensic Civic Virtue. The National Forensic Journal, 20(1), 71-73. Cerca con Google

Perry, L. A. (2003). Engaging Ethos: Source Citation Accuracy in Intercollegiate Forensics. The National Forensic Journal, 21(3), 52-66. Cerca con Google

Perulli, E. (2007). Rappresentare, riconoscere e promuovere le competenze : il concetto di competenza nella domanda clinica e sociale di benessere e sviluppo. Milano: Franco Angeli. Cerca con Google

Petty, R. E. & Wegener D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D., Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G., Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill. Cerca con Google

Phillips, D. (2008). Investigating the Shared Background Required for Argument: A Critique of Fogelin’s Thesis on Deep Disagreement. Informal Logic, 28(2), 86-101. Cerca con Google

Piaia, G. (2007). Il lavoro storico-filosofico: questioni di metodo ed esiti didattici. Padova: CLEUP. Cerca con Google

Pickering, P. (2000). How to Manage Conflict: Turn All Conflicts Into Win-Win Outcomes. New Jersey: Career Press. Cerca con Google

Pilgram, R. & Polcar, L. (2008). On the Receiving End of a Fallacy: Dealing with Fallacious Argumentation in Question-Answer Exchanges. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, San Diego, California. Cerca con Google

Platone (1992a). Apologia di Socrate. In G., Reale (Ed.), Tutti gli scritti. Milaano: Rusconi Libri. Cerca con Google

Platone (1992b). Protagora. In G., Reale (Ed.), Tutti gli scritti. Milaano: Rusconi Libri. Cerca con Google

Pomerantz E., Chaiken S. & Tordesillas R. (1995). Attitude Strength and Resistance Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 408-419. Cerca con Google

Pontecorvo, C. (1985). Discutere per ragionare: la construzione della conoscenza come argomentazione. Rassegna di psicologia, 2(1 & 2), 23-45. Cerca con Google

Pontecorvo, C. (1997a). Interazione sociale e costruzione della conoscenza: paradigmi a confronto e prospettive di ricerca. In C. Pontecorvo, A. M. Ajello & C. Zucchermaglio (Eds.), Discutendo s’impara. Interazione sociale e conoscenza a scuola (pp. 53-69). Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Cerca con Google

Pontecorvo, C. (1997b). Discutere, argomentare e pensare a scuola. L’adulto come regolatore dell’apprendimento. In C. Pontecorvo, A. M. Ajello & C. Zucchermaglio (Eds.), Discutendo s’impara. Interazione sociale e conoscenza a scuola (pp. 73-96). Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Cerca con Google

Popper, K. (1972). Congetture e confutazioni. Lo sviluppo della conoscenza scientifica. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cerca con Google

Porcarelli, A. (1998). Insegnare la filosofia medievale: stereotipi e innovazioni didattiche. Comunicazione filosofica, 4. Retrieved from: http://www.sfi.it/ Vai! Cerca con Google

archiviosfi/cf/cf4/articoli/porcarelli.htm Cerca con Google

Porcarelli, A. (1999). Spunti per una didattica della filosofia tratti dall'esperienza delle università medievali. Retrieved from http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/sfi/cf/ Vai! Cerca con Google

cf1_porcarelli.htm Cerca con Google

Porcarelli, A. (2006). Costruire “dispute verbali” di filosofia mediante le TIC. In L. Rossetti, & C. Chiapperini (Eds.), Filosofare con i bambini e i ragazzi. Atti delle giornate di studio (Città di Castello, 31 marzo–3 aprile 2006) (pp. 129-150). Perugia: Morlacchi. Cerca con Google

Potter, D. (1954). Argumentation and Debate. Principles and Practice. New York, Dryden Press. Cerca con Google

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. D. (1982). The Development of Integrative Agreements In V. J., Derlegan, & J., Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and Helping Behaviour (pp.151-181), New York: Academic Press. Cerca con Google

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. D. (1997). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Buckingam: Open University Press. Cerca con Google

Pruitt, D. G. & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social Conflict. Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cerca con Google

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict. Escalation Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: Random House. Cerca con Google

Putnam, H. (1975a). It ain’t necessarily so. In H. Putnam (Ed.). Philosophical Papers (pp. 237-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Putnam, H. (1975b). The Analitic and the Syntetic. In H. Putnam (Ed.). Philosophical Papers (pp. 33-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Raden, D. (1985). Strenght-Related Attitude Dimensions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(4), 312-330. Cerca con Google

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A Measure of Styles od Handling Interpersonal Conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376. Cerca con Google

Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing Conflict in Organizations. Westport: Preager Publisher. Cerca con Google

Rahim, M. A. (1995). ROCI – Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories. Firenze: Organizzazioni speciali. Cerca con Google

Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict: First-Order Factor Model and Its Invariance Across Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122-132. Cerca con Google

Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Do Justice Perceptions Influence Styles of Handling Conflict with Supervisors?: What Justice Perceptions, Precisely?, The International Journal of conflict Management, 11(1), 9-31. Cerca con Google

Raider, E. (1995). Conflict Resolution Training in Schools. Translating Theory into Applied Skills. In B. B., Bunker, J. Z., Rubin, & Associates (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation and Justice. Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cerca con Google

Reid, R. F. (2000). Foreword: A Long and Proud Tradition. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 1-11. Cerca con Google

Rescher, N. (1978). Philosophical Disagreement. Review of Methaphysics, 32(2), 217-251. Cerca con Google

Rescher, N. (1993). La lotta dei sistemi. Fondamenti e implicazioni della pluralità filosofica. Genova: Marietti. Cerca con Google

Reznik, R. M., Roloff, M. E., & Miller, W. C. (2010). Communication During Interpersonal Arguing: Implications for Stress Symptoms. Argumentation and Advocacy, 46(3), 193-213. Cerca con Google

Ricco, R. B. (2007). Individual Differences in the Analysis of Informal Reasooning Fallacies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 459-484. Cerca con Google

Risen, J., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Informal Logical Fallacies. In R. J. Sternberg, H. L. Roediger III et al. (Eds.), Critical Thinking in Psychology (pp. 110-130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Rogers, J. E., & Rennels A. (in press), Outcome Based Life Choices: An Outcome Assessment Confirmation Study Measuring Positive Social Outcomes Beyond Undergraduate Experiences in Competitive Intercollegiate Debate for Partecipants and Society. In A. Snider (Ed.) Proceeding of the III Thinking and Speaking a Better World Conference. Cerca con Google

Rosenkranz, S. (2008). Frege, Relativism, and Faultless Disagreement. In M., García-Carpintero, & M., Kölbel, (Eds.), Relative Truth (pp. 225-237), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Rubinstein, J. L., & Feldman, S. S. (1993). Conflict-Resolution Behaviour in Adolescent Boys: Antecedents and Adaptational Correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(1), 41-66. Cerca con Google

Rybold, G. (2006). Speaking, Listening and Understanding. Debate for Non-Native English Speakers. New York: IDEA Press. Cerca con Google

Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. K. (Eds.). (2003). Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber. Cerca con Google

Salvatore, A. (2010). Il pacifismo. Roma: Carocci. Cerca con Google

Santi, M. (2006). Ragionare con il discorso. Il pensiero argomentativo nelle discussioni in classe. Napoli: Liguori Editore. Cerca con Google

Scabini, E., & Gilli, G. (1992). Competenza sociale e relazioni familiari: le fasi precoci dello sviluppo. In Di Blasio P. & Venini, L. (Eds.), Competenze cognitive e sociali: processi di interazione e modelli di sviluppo (pp. 147-154). Milano: Vita e pensiero. Cerca con Google

Schafer, K. (2010). Faultless Disagreement and Aesthetic Realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82(2), 265-286. Cerca con Google

Schelling, C. T. (1980). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cerca con Google

Schiappa, E. (1991). Protagoras and Logos. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Cerca con Google

Schilling, D. (2009a). Strategies for Managing Everyday Conflict. Retrieved from (now suspended) http://www.womensmedia.com/lead/182-strategies-for-managing-everyday-conflict.html Vai! Cerca con Google

Schilling, D. (2009b). Managing Conflict by Using the Strategies of Abandoning, Avoiding, and Dominating. Retrieved from (now suspended) http://www.womensmedia.com/new/conflict-management-2.shtml Vai! Cerca con Google

Schilling, D., Cowan, D., & Palomares, S. (1994). Conflict Resolution Skills for Teen. California: Innerchoice Publishing. Cerca con Google

Schlecht, L. F. (1991). Classifying Fallacies Logically. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 53-64. Cerca con Google

Schönberger, R. (1997). La Scolastica medievale. Cenni per una definizione. Milano: Vita e pensiero. Cerca con Google

Schopenhauer, A. (2005). L’arte di ottenere ragione. Milano: Adelphi. Cerca con Google

Schroeder, D. (1999). Optimal Item Difficulty. Retrieved from http://www.uwosh.edu/testing/faculty-information/test-scoring/score-report-interpretation/item-analysis-1/item-difficulty Vai! Cerca con Google

Schuster, K., & Meany, J. (2005). Speak Out!: Debate and Public Speaking in the Middle Grade. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Sclavi, M. (2003). Arte di ascoltare e mondi possibili. Come si esce dalle cornici di cui siamo parte. Milano: Mondadori. Cerca con Google

Scott, S. (2008). Perceptions of Students’ Learning Critical Thinking through Debate in a Technology Classroom: A Case Study. The Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 39-44. Cerca con Google

Sears D. O., Freedman J. L., & O’Connor E. F. (1964). The Effects of Anticipated Debate and Commitment on the Polarization of Audience Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, 615-627. Cerca con Google

Sears, D. O., Freedman, J. L., & O’Connor, E. F. (1964). The Effects of Anticipated Debate and Commitment on the Polarization of Audience Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(4), 615-627. Cerca con Google

Semlak W. D. & Shields D. (1977). The Effect of Debate Training on Students Participation in the Bicentennial Youth Debates. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 192-196 Cerca con Google

Shurter, E. D. (1917). How to Debate. New York-London: Harper & Brother Publ. Cerca con Google

Siegel S. & Castellan N. J. Jr. (1992). Statistica non parametrica. Milano: McGraw-Hill. Cerca con Google

Siver, C., & Veden, M. L. (2007 February). Debate as a Laboratory for Political Science and Student Centered Learning. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Teaching and Learning Conference, Charlotte. Cerca con Google

Snider, A. C. (2002). Index of Travel: Chile /02 Folder. 02 Dic. 2002. Retrieved from http://debate.uvm.edu/travel/chile02/chileinto.html Vai! Cerca con Google

Snider, A. (2005). Voices in the Sky. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Snider, A. (2008). The Code of the Debater: Introduction to Parliamentary Debate. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Snider, A. (2011a). Debate: Critical Method for the 21st Century. In A. Cattani (Ed.), Argomentare le proprie ragioni. Organizzare, condurre e valutare un dibattito (pp. 91-100). Casoria: Loffredo University Press. Cerca con Google

Snider, A. C. (2011b). A Short Guide to Competitive Debate Formats. Retrieved from http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/debateformatguide.pdf Vai! Cerca con Google

Snider A. & Schnurer M. (2006). Many Sides: Debate Across the Curriculum. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Sosa, E. (2008 August). The Epistemology of Disagreement. Paper presented at the Stirling Social Epistemology Conference. Cerca con Google

Spade, P. V. (2008). Medieval Theories of Obligationes. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/obligationes/ Vai! Cerca con Google

Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The Early Emergence of Argumentative Knowledge and Skill. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Founfations of Argumentative Text Processing (pp. 97-116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Cerca con Google

Stepp, P. (1990). Taking CEDA Debaters Out of the Normal Tournament Setting. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 11, 80-87. Cerca con Google

Striano, M. (2004). Introduzione alla pedagogia sociale. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Cerca con Google

Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking About Taste: Disagreement, Implicit Arguments and Relative Truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 691-706. Cerca con Google

Swift, L. C., & Vourvoulias C. (2006). Argumentativeness, Verbal Aggressiveness, and Relational Satisfaction in the Parlamentary Debate Dyad. Journal of the National Parliamentary Debate Association, 11, 1-25. Cerca con Google

Swinton, L. (2011). Workplace Conflict Management: Strategy for Successful Resolution. Retrieved from http://www.mftrou.com/support-files/workplace-conflict-management-strategy.pdf Vai! Cerca con Google

Tannen, B. (1999). The Argument Culture. Change The Way We Argue And Debate. London: Virago. Cerca con Google

Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in Academic Discourse. Journals of Pragmatics, 34(10-11), 1651-1669. Cerca con Google

Thomas, D. A., & Hart, J. (1983). Ethics in Speech Events: A Replication and Extension. The National Forensic Journal, 1(2), 74-95. Cerca con Google

Thomas, K. (1992). Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organizations. In M.D., Dunnette, & L.M., Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 651-717). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Cerca con Google

Thouless, H. R. (1959). Effect of Prejudice on Reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 50(4), 289-293. Cerca con Google

Thun, F S. von. (1997). Parlare insieme. La psicologia della comunicazione. Milano: TEA. Cerca con Google

Tindale, C. W. (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Tjosvold, D., & Johnson, D. W. (1977). Effects of Controversy on Cognitive Perspective Taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(6), 679-685. Cerca con Google

Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., & Lawrence, J. F. (1980). Effects of Controversy and Defenseveness on Cognitive Perspective-Taking. Psychological Reports, 47, 1043-1053. Cerca con Google

Trapp R., J. P. Zompetti, J. Motiejunaite, & W. Driscoll (2005). Discovering the World Trough Debate. A Practical Guide to Educational Debate for Debaters, Coaches and Judges. New York: IDEA. Cerca con Google

Tumposky, N. R. (2004). The Debate Debate. The Clearing House, 78(2), 52-55. Cerca con Google

Turchi G. P., Barbanera D. & Monaco C. (2008). Valutazione dell’efficacia del percorso formativo. In S. Nicolli e A., Cattani (Eds.), Palestra di Botta e Risposta. La disputa filosofica come formazione al dibattito nella scuola (pp. 85-92). Padova: CLEUP. Cerca con Google

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social Comparison and Social Identity: Some Prospects for Group Behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34. Cerca con Google

Turner D., & Wright L. (2005). Revisiting Deep Disagreement. Informal Logic, 25(1), 25-35. Cerca con Google

Turner M. M., Yao S., Baker R., Goodman J. & Matarese S. A. (2010). Do Lay People Prepare Both Sides of an Argument? The Effects of Confidence, Forewarning, and Expected Interaction on Seeking out Counter-Attitudinal Information. Argumentation and Advocacy, 46(4), 226-239. Cerca con Google

Ulrich, W. (1986). The Ethical Obligations of the Forensic Educator. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 7, 76-88. Cerca con Google

Ulrich, W. (1993). Common Debate Fallacies. Kansas City: National Federation of High School Associations. Cerca con Google

Ury, W., & Fisher, R. (2005). L’arte del negoziato. Per chi vuole ottenere il meglio in una trattativa ed evitare lo scontro. Milano, Corbaccio, Milano. Cerca con Google

Vasilyeva, A. L. (2010). The Treatment of Fallacies in Argumentative Situations During Mediation Sessions. Argumentation and Advocacy, 46(4), 173-192. Cerca con Google

Vliert, E. van de (1997). Complex Interpersonal Conflict Behaviour. Theoretical Frontiers. London: Psychology Press. Cerca con Google

Vliert, E. van de, Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing Conflict With a Subordinate or a Superior: Effectiveness of Conglomerated Behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 271-281. Cerca con Google

Vliert, E. van de, & Hordijk, J. W. (1989). A Theoretical Position of Compromising Among Other Styles of Conflict Management. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(5), 681-690. Cerca con Google

Vliert, E. van de, & Janssen, O. (1996). Concern for the Other Goals: Key to (De)Escalation of Conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(2), 99-120. Cerca con Google

Vo, H. X. & Morris, R. L. (1996). Debate as a Tool in Teaching Economics: Rationale, Tecnique, and Some Evidence. Journal of Education for Business, 81(6), 315-320. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. (1992). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. London: The University of Alabama Press. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. (1996). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. (1999). One-Sided Arguments. A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. New York: State University of New York Press. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic. A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, C. W. (1992). Commitment in Dialogue. Basic concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cerca con Google

Watson-Glaser Practice Test, Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonvue.com/ Vai! Cerca con Google

nphstr/wg_practice.pdf Cerca con Google

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, H. J., & Jackson, D. D. (1971). Pragmatica della comunicazione umana. Roma: Astrolabio. Cerca con Google

Wedgwood, R. (2010). The Moral Evil Demons. In R. Feldman, & T. A. Warfield, (Eds.), Disagreement (pp. 216-246). New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Weinstock, M., Neauman, Y., & Glassner, A. (2006). Identification of Informal Resoning Fallacies as a Function of Epistemological Level, Grade Level, and Cognitive Ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 327-341. Cerca con Google

Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the Point or Missing the Norm? Epistemological Norms as Predictors of Students' Ability to Identify Fallacious Arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 77-94. Cerca con Google

Westbrook, B. E. (2002). Debating Both Sides: What Nineteenth-Century College Literary Societies Can Teach Us about Critical Pedagogies. Rhetoric Review, 21(4), 339-356. Cerca con Google

Wiese, J, & Lewis, S. (2000). Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Values in Conflict. Topeka: Clark Publishing. Cerca con Google

Wijze, S. de (2003). Complexity, Relevance, and Character: Problems with Teaching the ad hominem Fallacy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1), 31-56. Cerca con Google

Wilhoft, W. (1929). Modern Debate Practice. New York: Prentice-Hall. Cerca con Google

Willard, C. A. (1987). Valuing Dissensus. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. J. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline (pp. 145-158), Holland-U.S.A: Foris Publications. Cerca con Google

Willard, C. A. (1989). A Theory of Argumentation. London: The University of Alabama Press. Cerca con Google

Willhoft, W. O. (1929). Modern Debate Practice. New York: Prentice-Hall. Cerca con Google

Williams, D. E., McGee B. R. & Worth, D. S. (2001). University Student Perceptions of the Efficacy of Debate Participation: An Empirical Investigation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37(4), 198-209. Cerca con Google

Williams, P. H. (2010). Using Debates on Family Issues with Undergraduate Students: The 5 R’s Strategy for Promoting Skill Development and Attitude Change. Michigan Family Review, 14(1), 91-109. Cerca con Google

Winkler, C. (2012). To Argue or To Fight: Improving At-risk Students’ School Conduct through Urban Debate. Controversia, 7(2), 76-90. Cerca con Google

Withman, G. (2001). Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html Vai! Cerca con Google

Wittgenstein L. (1978). Della certezza. Torino: Einaudi. (Original work 1969). Cerca con Google

Wittgenstein, L. (1983). Ricerche filosofiche. Torino: Einaudi. Cerca con Google

Wood, R. V., & Goodnight, L. (1994). Strategic Debate. Lincolnwood: NTC. Cerca con Google

Wood, S., & Rowland-Morin, P. A. (1989). Motivational Tension: Winning vs Pedagogy in Academic Debate. The National Forensic Journal, 7, 81-97. Cerca con Google

Wood W. (2000), Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570. Cerca con Google

Wood, W. (2000). Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 39-570. Cerca con Google

Wright, C. (2001). On Being in a Quandary. Mind, 110, 45-98. Cerca con Google

Xodo, C. (2010). Per una epistemologia delle competenze. In C., Xodo, & M., Benetton (Eds.), Che cos’è la competenza? Costrutti epistemologici, pedagogici e deontologici (pp. 21-29). Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia. Cerca con Google

Zanatta, M. (2004). Ermagora. Testimonianze e frammenti. Milano: Edizioni Unicopoli. Cerca con Google

Zarefsky, D. (2011). The Appeal for Transcendence: A Possible Response to Cases of Deep Disagreement. In F. H. van, Eemeren, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 2058-2069), Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic-Sat. Cerca con Google

Zarefsky, D. (2012). The Appeal for Transcendence: A Possible Response to Cases of Deep Disagreement. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Twenty Explanatory Studies (pp. 77-89). Springer: Amsterdam. Cerca con Google

Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The Central Role of Fallacious Thinking in Science Education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496. Cerca con Google

Zeidelr, D. L., Osborne J., Erduran S., Simon, S. & Monk, M. (2003). The Role of Argument During Discourse about Socioscientific Issues. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Cerca con Google

Zennaro, G. (2008). La disputa filosofica come palestra dell’autentico dialogo intersoggettivo. In S. Nicolli, & A. Cattani (Eds.), Palestra di Botta e Risposta. La disputa filosofica come formazione al dibattito nella scuola (pp. 64-84). Padova: CLEUP. Cerca con Google

Zennaro, G. (2011). Dialogo e Argomentazione: la disputa filosofica come esperienza didattica. In A. Cattani (Eds.), Argomentare le proprie ragioni. Organizzare, condurre e valutare un dibattito (pp. 195-200). Napoli: Loffredo Editore University Press. Cerca con Google

Ziegelmueller, G., Harris, S., & Bloomingdale, D. (1995). Advancing in Debate: Skills and Concepts. Topeka: Clark Publishing. Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record