This paper explores micro-argumentative patterns in 12 debate-like political interactions to account for the discursive construction of victimhood and disenfranchisements employed to justify ethno-sectarian conflicts for power in Iraqi media interactions across traditional and new media. The assay found that the interlocutors used a restricted number of argumentative patterns to utter their (dis)agreement and justify their opinions; these argumentative patterns were either action-oriented or actor-oriented. Action-oriented (de)legitimizing patterns tended to be short-ranged in nature, centering on the expediency of the actions (de)legitimized. Alternatively, actor-oriented argumentative patterns were employed to justify the long-rooted ideological biases about self and others and, therefore, appeared to have a panoramic focus on the ethno-sectarian conflicts for power in the country. The assay displayed that even the interactions that centered on debating the efficiency of specific political actions and agendas tended to develop into ideological debates about ethno-sectarian identities and communally biased interpretations of the political scene. This kind of identity politics seems to be inspired by, and to simultaneously increase, the sentiments of disenfranchisement and victimhood, which may further intensify inter-communal quarrels in the country.