On some rules of debate in argumentation of democracies

Abstract

Argumentation in public spaces for deliberation of open societies implies responsibility. The non-observance of the so-called “rules of the debate” would therefore be an example of the irresponsible public use of the word, making criticism difficult. Thus, one questions whether, regarding the vote of Dilma Rousseff ‘s impeachment in the Chamber of Deputies, these basic rules of argument would have been neglected and how this may have compromised the democratic debate. With the help of language science concepts, such as “denunciation rhetoric”, “conspiracy rhetoric”, “resentment pathos”, “expert ethos”, among others, the research pointed out that, deputies, regardless of their cultural and political orientation, tended to disregard the rules inherent in the debate. Consequently, the Brazilian Parliament understood as the public sphere of deliberation showed to be characteristic of dogmatic societies.