Antagonistic replies to (un)desirable issues

Antagonistic replies are well illustrated by [ex_sailing p.18]. By mentioning the fact that Marc Pajot reached the semi-finals, C does not perform any invalidation (e.g. by calling into question the fact that M. Pajot was beaten), nor is she trying to banalize the event (by diminishing the cruelty of the defeat, as B did). What she does is different. She balances the situation : Yes, on one side, he was badly beaten, and this is undesirable. But on another side, he reached the semi-finals, and this is finally a good thing. The same situation is presented by C as being sufficient to provoke dissatisfaction and satisfaction at the same time :

context of A1: [French(X) & important( Race ) & beaten( X, Race ) ] => UND

context of C1: [French(X) & important( Race ) & reaches_semi-final(X, Race ) ] => DES

We call this kind of reply antagonistic reaction. The antagonistic reaction consists in balancing advantages and drawbacks of the situation or of a solution, in other terms to "weigh the pros and the cons". The model actually predicts four possibilities for antagonistic reactions, which we can sketch this way :

first utterance	antagonistic reply
	p => DES or UND => not p
p => UND or DES => not p
	not p => UND or DES => p
	p => UND or DES => not p
p => DES or UND => not p
	not p => DES or UND => p

The above excerpt belongs clearly to the first case, but all cases are illustrated in the corpus. For instance [ex_doors p.13] A4, A7, A8 fall into the second case.