Arguments in the wild: A journalistic approach to Argumentation Theory for social media users and observers

• Grant number: 25/04809-6
• Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Journalism
• Start date: August 01, 2025
• End date: July 31, 2026
• Field of knowledge: Interdisciplinary Subjects
• Principal Investigator: José Álvaro Moisés
• Grantee: André Bazzoni Bueno
• Host Institution: Instituto de Estudos Avançados (IEA). Universidade de São Paulo (USP). São Paulo , SP, Brazil
• Institution abroad: Grupo de Usuários Wikimedia no Brasil, Brazil

Abstract

This project seeks to address the negative impacts of affective polarization and misinformation, particularly within the context of Brazilian social media. It identifies, as a starting point, a critical societal issue: the increasing use of social media platforms to spread flawed arguments and fallacious reasoning. This phenomenon poses a serious threat to social cohesion and democratic processes by hindering constructive public debate. To address this, the project proposes leveraging the principles of argumentation theory to equip citizens with the ability to critically evaluate online information and engage in more reasoned and tolerant discourse. To counteract these trends, the project proposes a two-pronged approach: informing the public on the fundamental principles of argumentation theory, and creating an interactive platform for real-world argument analysis. The first part of the project involves producing accessible journalistic materials that explain the fundamentals of argumentation theory. These materials will be tailored to a general audience, using clear language, practical examples, and diagrams to illustrate how to construct and evaluate arguments effectively. For instance, the pieces will highlight common fallacies like ad hominem attacks, where the argument is discredited by attacking the person making it, even if those personal attributes are irrelevant to the argument's validity. The project aims to show how recognizing and avoiding these fallacies can improve the quality of online discourse and promote a more constructive and tolerant public sphere. The second part of the project involves developing an interactive digital channel where users can apply their understanding of argumentation theory to real-world examples from online platforms, particularly social media. By engaging with argumentation in this practical way, users will develop a more intuitive understanding of what constitutes a sound argument and be better equipped to identify and challenge flawed reasoning. The project acknowledges the specific challenges associated with analyzing arguments on social media, including the informal nature of online communication, platform-specific conventions, and the use of stylistic elements that deviate from formal written argumentation. In this regard, some existing research addressing the problem will be utilized in order to develop evaluation criteria specifically directed at these arguments, considering both the content and the context in which they are presented. In summary, by combining theoretical elements in a journalistic approach with concrete examples of argumentative analysis and evaluation extracted from public debate, particularly from digital platforms, this project aims to promote the formation of a more informed and critical public. In doing so, it aspires to contribute to the revitalization of democratic dialogue and the promotion of a more tolerant society. (AU)