Dharma, Data and Deception: An LLM-Powered Rhetorical Analysis of Cow-Urine Health Claims on YouTube

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22606v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 14:31:53 GMT
• Title: Dharma, Data and Deception: An LLM-Powered Rhetorical Analysis of Cow-Urine Health Claims on YouTube
• Abstract summary: We examine 100 YouTube transcripts that promote or debunk cow urine (gomutra) as a health remedy.<n>We employ large language models (LLMs) including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Mistral Medium 3 to annotate transcripts.<n>Our analysis reveals that promoters predominantly rely on efficacy appeals and social proof, while debunkers emphasize authority and rebuttal.
• Score: 2.4751701576209166
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Health misinformation remains one of the most pressing challenges on social media, particularly when cultural traditions intersect with scientific-sounding claims. These dynamics are not only global but also deeply local, manifesting in culturally specific controversies that require careful analysis. Motivated by this, we examine 100 YouTube transcripts that promote or debunk cow urine (gomutra) as a health remedy, focusing on rhetorical strategies such as appeals to authority, efficacy appeals, and conspiracy framing. We employ large language models (LLMs) including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Mistral Medium 3 to annotate transcripts using a 14-category taxonomy of persuasive tactics. Our analysis reveals that promoters predominantly rely on efficacy appeals and social proof, while debunkers emphasize authority and rebuttal. Human evaluation of a subset of annotations yielded 90.1\% inter-annotator agreement, confirming the reliability of our taxonomy and validation process. This work advances computational methods for misinformation analysis and demonstrates how LLMs can support large-scale studies of cultural discourse online.

Related papers

• Does Topic Sentiment Cause Perceived Ideology? Comparing Human and LLM Annotations in Political News Articles [0.0]
  We ask whether topic sentiment has a causal effect on perceived political ideology.<n>We compare ideology labels from expert human annotators, GPT-4o-mini (baseline and finetuned), and Llama-3.3-70B.<n>Human annotations yield no significant causal effects at the community level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T21:05:48Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• When Cow Urine Cures Constipation on YouTube: Limits of LLMs in Detecting Culture-specific Health Misinformation [2.4751701576209166]
  Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis.<n>We show that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors.<n>Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T18:42:37Z)
• The Anatomy of Speech Persuasion: Linguistic Shifts in LLM-Modified Speeches [2.8649371010678606]
  This study examines how large language models understand the concept of persuasiveness in public speaking by modifying speech transcripts.<n>We prompt GPT-4o to enhance or diminish persuasiveness and analyze linguistic shifts between original and generated speech in terms of the new features.<n>Results indicate that GPT-4o applies systematic stylistic modifications rather than optimizing persuasiveness in a human-like manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T13:28:33Z)
• Debunking with Dialogue? Exploring AI-Generated Counterspeech to Challenge Conspiracy Theories [0.0]
  We evaluate the ability of GPT-4o, Llama 3, and Mistral to effectively apply counterspeech strategies derived from psychological research provided through structured prompts.<n>Our results show that the models often generate generic, repetitive, or superficial results.<n>They over-acknowledge fear and frequently hallucinate facts, sources, or figures, making their prompt-based use problematic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T10:32:45Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Belief in the Machine: Investigating Epistemological Blind Spots of Language Models [51.63547465454027]
  Language models (LMs) are essential for reliable decision-making in fields like healthcare, law, and journalism. This study systematically evaluates the capabilities of modern LMs, including GPT-4, Claude-3, and Llama-3, using a new dataset, KaBLE. Our results reveal key limitations. First, while LMs achieve 86% accuracy on factual scenarios, their performance drops significantly with false scenarios. Second, LMs struggle with recognizing and affirming personal beliefs, especially when those beliefs contradict factual data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T16:38:20Z)
• PropaInsight: Toward Deeper Understanding of Propaganda in Terms of Techniques, Appeals, and Intent [71.20471076045916]
  Propaganda plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and fueling disinformation.<n>Propainsight systematically dissects propaganda into techniques, arousal appeals, and underlying intent.<n>Propagaze combines human-annotated data with high-quality synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T06:28:18Z)
• Missci: Reconstructing Fallacies in Misrepresented Science [84.32990746227385]
  Health-related misinformation on social networks can lead to poor decision-making and real-world dangers. Missci is a novel argumentation theoretical model for fallacious reasoning. We present Missci as a dataset to test the critical reasoning abilities of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T12:11:10Z)
• Exploring the Potential of the Large Language Models (LLMs) in Identifying Misleading News Headlines [2.0330684186105805]
  This study explores the efficacy of Large Language Models (LLMs) in identifying misleading versus non-misleading news headlines. Our analysis reveals significant variance in model performance, with ChatGPT-4 demonstrating superior accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T04:06:45Z)
• Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT [65.268245109828]
  This paper investigates the trustworthiness of ChatGPT and GPT-4 regarding logically consistent behaviour. Our findings suggest that while both models appear to show an enhanced language understanding and reasoning ability, they still frequently fall short of generating logically consistent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-11T01:19:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.