***English text below. Remove this message when translating, otherwise the page may be overwritten:***no frame (This activity was created based on an original suggestion by Ana Clara Spitz Manzo) The Colloquium activity is designed to train you to present and defend an opinion in a logical and argumentative way and ask inquisitive questions, and dispute assertions made by others. In this activity, you'll be taking turns with the rest of the participants by both defending your own statements and attacking and refuting the arguments of your opponents. Ideally, the number of colloquium participants should be between 3 and 5. The activity is managed by a Colloquium Moderator, which prepares a set of questions for the participants. The questions should be open-ended, on which the participant can formulate a well-founded and argumented point of view. They may be either about current events or general social or human topics. Questions should be formal and based on reality, sufficiently general to allow for an interesting and realistic debate. There should be at least twice as many questions prepared as participants. Except for thematic clubs, all questions must be on different topics (For example, it's not appropriate if all 10 questions are about sports, or about politics, etc.) Questions shouldn't be disclosed until the activity. As a Colloquium Moderator, It's important to be unbiased when selecting and writing down the questions and presenting them in a neutral way, without hinting at a "correct" response or presenting your own opinion part of the question. For example, you shouldn't be asking, "What do you think about vegans? Should everyone become a vegan to stop the endless torture and slaughtering of animals?" It's generally a good idea to include some context in the question. For example, instead of just asking, "Do you think it's ethical to change the fiscal residence to benefit from lower taxes?" the Moderator could say: "Recently we read in the news that a famous youtube vlogger with millions of followers had decided to move to a place with lower taxes. He said that he felt as if he was constantly being treated as a criminal, constantly suspected of tax evasion in his own country. Do you think it's ethical to change the fiscal residence to benefit from lower taxes?" The activity also requires several Colloquium evaluators - these can be volunteers or selected by the Moderator. Since the interactions during the Colloquium can become quite complex, it's a good idea to have as many evaluators as participants and have each evaluator focus on evaluating the performance (both defending and refuting) of just one participant. For each Colloquium participant, the activity proceeds in "turns". In each of them, one of the participants acts as a presenter (defender) of a viewpoint, and the others will try to refute it. The participant receives a random question from the set that the Moderator has prepared. The Moderator will start reading it, and the participant can accept it or reject it if he doesn't feel prepared or knowledgeable enough to speak about the subject. If the question is rejected, the Moderator will present another random question, and this second time there's no possibility of rejection. After the question is received and accepted, the participant has up to 30 seconds to think about the opinion they want to defend on the subject. To prevent rushed defenses that are poorly thought-out, the Moderator should insist that participants think during the 20-30 seconds they have allotted for that, instead of jumping to speak immediately. Once the thinking period is over, the participant has up to 2 minutes to present his or her opinion and defend it. Once the defense is complete, the Moderator will give the floor to the challengers. Each challenger has one minute to try to refute the view presented by the defender. The section format and goals require that challengers try to refute the defense, even when in their "normal life (outside of the meeting), " they would agree with it. Challengers are evaluated on the thoroughness and strength of their arguments and questioning. During that minute, they may present evidence that contradicts what the presenter said, point to errors in reasoning, ask questions, put forward alternative views, etc. After that minute, the floor goes back again to the presenter, who has to counter what the challenger just said. After that, the floor passes to the next challenger, and the procedure repeats until all the participants have had their turn in trying to refute the presenter. Once that happens, roles are switched, and the participant that was asked the question acts as a challenger, whereas one of the remaining challengers becomes the new presenter that has to defend a viewpoint. The activity finishes when all Colloquium participants have had the opportunity to be presenters once. Personal attacks or generalizations, hate speech, or violent reactions of any kind are not allowed during this section. Anyone doing so will be automatically disqualified, and the Moderator will prevent that person from continuing to speak - either by silencing their microphone or starting to clap. If the offender was the presenter, the questioning round is considered closed, and the activity moves to the next presenter. If the offender was a challenger, then the presenter won't be required to answer any of the arguments put forward by him, and the floor moves to the next challenger. Neither the presenter nor the challengers may be interrupted while they speak, except if they commit the offense described above or exceed the speaking time. Timing is a critical aspect of the colloquium. It's very easy to go overtime a lot in this section if the Timer doesn't enforce timing strictly. Once the section is over, evaluators will have a short break of 1-2 minutes to write down their notes and feedback on each participant. All roles will be evaluated using the same criteria, specifically: Time management. Respect towards the opponents Truthfulness and accuracy of the data or arguments presented. Intellectual honesty (absence of fallacious reasoning or manipulative techniques, etc.) Delivery - body language, vocal variety, etc. Quality and robustness of the presented arguments The ability to make the opponents concede partially or totally a point, or even change their minds Each Evaluator will have up to 2 minutes to deliver his or her evaluation. It should contain an assessment on whether the participant defended the opinion convincingly against the opponents' attacks or whether the opponents were more successful and defeated the opinion. There's a great temptation to have a "colloquium winner", but you should be careful as people are not always happy to be dragged into a competition they didn't intend to participate in. To avoid that, before the activity, ask all colloquium participants privately whether they would like to compete and have a winner elected. You should go ahead only if no one objects. Sample Development Here's how a Colloquium session with three participants - John, Peter, and Martha would proceed: The Colloquium Moderator presents a question to John. If he accepts the question, he 20-30 seconds to develop an opinion and up to 2 minutes to present it. After John's time is out, Peter has one minute to ask John questions or try to refute his viewpoint. After that, John has 1 minute to respond to the issues raised by Peter. Then Martha's turn comes for questioning, and she also has up to 1 minute to dispute John's assertions, to which John has 1 minute to respond. After the first round is over, participants switch places: Peter accepts a question from the Moderator, thinks for 20-30 seconds then presents his opinion for up to 2 minutes. John has 1 minute to try to refute Peter's viewpoint or to ask questions. Peter has 1 minute to reply to John. Martha has 1 minute to try to refute Peter's viewpoint or to ask questions. Peter has 1 minute to reply to Martha. Finally, it's Martha's turn to defend: Martha accepts a question from the Moderator, thinks for 20-30 seconds, then presents her opinion for up to 2 minutes. Peter has 1 minute to try to refute Martha's viewpoint or to ask questions. Martha has 1 minute to reply to Peter. John has 1 minute to try to refute Martha's viewpoint or to ask questions. Martha has 1 minute to reply to John.