Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory is a method of explaining the ways in which people argue or debate. It can be used to describe everything from formal written arguments to the way people resolve everyday situations, such as whose turn it is to take out the trash or why a purchase is too expensive. It has its roots in ancient times but was refined by nineteenth- and twentieth-century philosophers into a formal theory. The theory is based in large part on the idea that while reason is part of forming an argument, it is often not the key factor in how people develop a line of thinking in an argument. This is because people are often biased toward their own viewpoints and shape their reasoning to support them, regardless of whether those viewpoints are sound.

Background

The word argumentation comes from the root word argument. Argument comes to English through a fourteenth-century Old French word, arguement, which meant “opinion, reasoning” or “accusation, charge.” This word had its origin in the Latin word argumentum, which referred to a logical debate or the evidence, proof, or other support for that reasoning. Argumentum came from the Latin root word arguere, which means “to make known or to prove.” The word argument eventually took on the meaning of a quarrel or verbal disagreement between two or more people.

Philosophers as far back as Aristotle have been interested in how and why people debate and argue. During the mid-twentieth century, the academic world developed an interest in studying and discussing the argument process and practices. Two of the most widely accepted theorists were the Polish philosopher Chaïm Perelman and the British logician and professor Stephen Toulmin.

Perelman was mostly focused on describing the forms arguments take and the verbal techniques people employ in these discussions. Toulmin found that while the traditional, formal means of describing arguments worked for academic discussions, they did not always apply to debates and discussions in everyday life. He developed a theory to describe the less formal but still defined process that people use in normal life situations. Others who also considered the argumentation process included French scientist Dan Sperber and researcher Hugo Mercier. They focused on how and why the natural tendency to be biased in favor of one’s own opinion interferes with the use of reason and logic in discussions and arguments.

Overview

Toulmin and his colleagues established a theory that argumentation includes three main parts. The first is the claim, which is the point the person who initiates the discussion is attempting to prove. The second part is the grounds or data that the person uses to support their side of the argument. The final part is the warrant, which is the explanation used as a bridge between the claim and the data.

Under the theory, the types of claims that are made during the argumentation process have been grouped into three main categories. They include facts, judgments, or values, and policies. Facts refer to definitive truths that can be proven. For example, two people may argue over the name of an actor in a movie; the resolution can be definitively settled with research because it is a fact. Judgments and values are more subjective and involve a personal opinion or a matter that has no definitive factual proof, for example, which fast-food fries taste best. A policy refers to a plan or course of action, such as where to go on vacation or what the hours of operation should be for a business. These are arguments in which there are generally valid, supportable points on multiple sides of the decision to be made, and the participants each choose grounds or data that support their viewpoint. There is no right or wrong answer, but one that makes the most sense for a particular situation and time.

The grounds or data used in support of a claim come in several forms. It can take the form of provable information, such as statistics showing which of two cities has a larger population. It can also be based on some form of credible source, such as the endorsement of specific sports equipment by a professional athlete. Data and evidence can also come in the form of reasoning, such as arguing in favor of having dinner at a particular restaurant because the food has been good every other time the person has eaten there.

Researchers have noted that support and evidence for argumentation usually start with some form of logic. However, the tendency of people to be biased and choose data and evidence that support their own viewpoint often affects the course of the argument. This often comes in the warrant portion of the argument, where the participants make the jump in reasoning from the evidence that has been presented to assuming the claim they are arguing for is true. For example, a person who is claiming one model of car is a better purchase option than another might provide support from a credible source, such as a friend, about the comfort and reliability of the car. This leads to the warrant statement that this is the same car that the friend has and likes, so the person will like it, too.

According to the theory, arguments include other factors as well. Researchers refer to these as backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals. Backing refers to additional information to support the warrant and is usually related to proving the reliability of the original support. For instance, in the previous example about the car purchase, the backing might be that the friend who owns the car under consideration is a mechanic who knows cars well. Qualifiers refer to how certain the person making the argument is about the viewpoint being supported, such as “I am positive this is the right car for us.” Rebuttals refer to situations in which the previous evidence may not apply. For example, “If we decide to spend more money on a car, then this other model would be a better choice.”

Several factors are important in applying the theory to academic arguments for the purpose of debate or an argumentative essay. The first is considering the topic of the argument. Only policy arguments are considered valid topics because fact-based arguments are indisputable, and judgments and values are open to personal interpretation. Academic arguments should also include counterarguments that take into consideration the opposing viewpoints, including conceding valid points presented by others and refuting the evidence presented on the other side.

Bibliography

Brockman, John, editor. “The Argumentative Theory.” Edge, 27 Apr. 2011, www.edge.org/conversation/hugo_mercier-the-argumentative-theory. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

“Communication Theories Sorted by Category.” University of Twente, 12 Mar. 2024, www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/sorted-by-level/micro/Argumentation%20Theory. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Grootendorst, Rob, and Frans H. van Eemeren. “Developments in Argumentation Theory.” University of Wetenschappen, www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00010570.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Jackson, Sally. "Studying Controversies: A Path for Expansion of Argumentation Theory." Argumentation, vol. 39, 2025, pp. 509–32, doi:10.1007/s10503-025-09671-2. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Kinnear, Benjamin, et al. “How Argumentation Theory Can Inform Assessment Validity: A Critical Review.” Medical Education, vol. 56, no. 11, 2022, pp. 1064–75, doi:10.1111/medu.14882. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Mercier, Hugo. "The Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 20, no. 9, Sept. 2016, pp. 689-700, doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. The Enigma of Reason. Harvard UP, 2017.

Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. "Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 34, no. 2, 2011, pp. 57-74.

Mootz, Francis J. “Perelman’s Theory of Argumentation and Natural Law.” Scholarly Commons at University of Las Vegas, 2010, scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/86. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Novaes, Catarina Dutilh. “Argument and Argumentation.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 16 July 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Rubinelli, Sara, and Nicola Diviani. “An Argumentation Theory-Based Assessment Tool for Evaluating Disinformation in Health-Related Claims.” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 133, 2025, doi:10.1016/j.pec.2024.108622. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.