Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

This study examines the expression and response mechanisms of ad hominem arguments, or personal attacks, in online environmental deliberation, aiming to investigate the impact of such arguments on the quality of discourse. This study offers a typology of ad hominem arguments and responses to provide empirical insights into the potential and limitations of online platforms as spaces for environmental deliberation. While such arguments can polarize discussions, they may also serve as legitimate attempts to question credibility or expose bias, rendering their role in online environmental discourse ambiguous.

By analysing public discussions on environmental issues on the Reddit platform, this study identifies five types of ad hominem arguments expressed at a trait-focused level and two types at a structural level. This study also identifies six types of response strategies, such as terminating the conversation and engaging in mutual attacks. The findings suggest that ad hominem arguments may undermine the principles of equal participation embedded in Habermas’s ideal speech situation, but can also serve as tools to expose power relations or assess the credibility of information. Furthermore, features of computer-mediated communication, such as the absence of social cues, may exacerbate misunderstandings and hinder the realization of rational discourse.