Eristic argumentation in digital interactions

a medical polemic about chloroquine in CNN Brazil’s Debate 360 show

Abstract

This paper aims at analyzing two types of eristic argumentative interactions held in CNN Brazil YouTube channel: an interaction between debaters and mediators in the ‘Debate 360’ show and an interaction between the comments of the social network users about the same debate. The study draws on Plantin’s (2008) interactional perspective on argumentation, on Amossys’s (2018) view on argumentative polemics, on Walton’s (1998) conception of eristic dialogue and on Culpeper’s (2011) and Blitvich’s (2010) discussion on interactive impoliteness. The corpus is composed, in terms of the debate, of twelve argumentative interventions and, in terms of comments, of a chain of nine utterances, all of them characterized by the instantiation of eristic features. The analysis focuses on (1) the interaction between two specialists, mediated by two journalists, about a controverse theme – the usage of hydroxichloroquine on Covid-19 patients, and (2) the interaction between the social network users in reaction to the debaters’ argumentation. The study shows which characteristics of polemics are instantiated in both interactions, specifies the features of the eristic dialogue that characterize the interactions and indicates how impoliteness acts are associated with argumentation. The results enable to comprehend how eristic argumentative interactions work in the digital environment and how the formation of ideological bubbles affords opportunities for conflicts of opinion.