Discover The Argumentation Techniques Used By The Very Best



We asked 674 debaters what the biggest myth on argumentation was. Their answer?



That argumentation is only for lawyers.



Interesting, right? And although argumentation is extremely useful and ubiquitous in the world of lawyers, it’s also an everyday tool for persuading friends, shaping policy, improving your professional and social life, and winning debates.



This article explores classical rhetorical appeals, structured models like Toulmin and Rogerian arguments, and shows how you can apply these techniques to real debates, everyday conversations and important situations like interviews or negotiations.



Why learn argumentation?



Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion, ethos, logos and pathos, remain the foundation of persuasive speaking today. Ethos establishes the speaker’s credibility and trustworthiness; logos uses logical reasoning and evidence to build a case; and pathos appeals to the audience’s emotions.



We often discuss Aristotle's mode in other articles like : What Makes Arguments Convincing? if you wish to delve deeper in the topic.



Effective arguments mix all three. For example, when debating whether online platforms should use AI to verify the age of their users you might:



Ethos: Introduce yourself as a data‑privacy researcher and cite your experience evaluating age‑verification systems to establish authority.



Logos: Present statistics on how many minors lie about their age online and reference studies showing AI can reduce that problem.



Pathos: Share a story about a teenager harmed by an unsafe online environment to appeal to the audience’s empathy.



The best debaters weave these appeals together so the audience both trusts them and understands their logic.



Why Argumentation Matters Beyond Debate



Learning argumentation is a skill that quietly shapes the most important moments of our lives. It is one of the most coveted skills for employers when it comes to new hires, especially for important roles.



1. Professional Growth: Whether you’re negotiating a salary, pitching a project, or defending a decision in a meeting, the ability to combine credibility, logic, and emotional connection can determine whether your ideas are embraced or dismissed.
2. Civic Engagement: In community meetings, political discussions, or advocacy for social causes, argumentation empowers people to cut through noise and present clear, grounded, and human-centered reasoning that others can rally behind.
3. Personal Relationships: Even in dating and friendships, persuasive skills matter. Explaining who you are, what you value, and why you’d be a good partner is essentially self-promotion through argumentation. The mix of ethos (being genuine and trustworthy), logos (showing thoughtfulness and clarity), and pathos (creating emotional resonance) helps people connect on a deeper level.



At its core, argumentation is about presenting yourself and your ideas in a way that others can believe in, understand, and feel moved by. That’s why it transcends formal debates. It’s a life skill that shapes careers, communities, and even the bonds we form with each other.



The Toulmin model: breaking down an argument



British philosopher Stephen Toulmin proposed a practical way to analyze arguments. In this model, an argument consists of several parts.



1. Claim: The assertion you want the audience to accept.
2. Grounds/Evidence: The data or examples supporting the claim.
3. Warrant: The logical link between the evidence and the claim.
4. Backing: Additional support for the warrant.
5. Rebuttal: Acknowledgement of counter‑arguments with refutation.
6. Qualifier: Language that moderates the claim (e.g., in most cases).



A strong warrant is a universal principle that few would dispute, whereas a weak warrant can undermine the entire argument.



For example, in the VersyTalks debate “Should organ markets be legalized to reduce transplant shortages?”, the claim might be that organ markets should remain illegal. The evidence could include data showing that unregulated markets exploit the poor.



The warrant is the ethical principle that human dignity shouldn’t be commodified. A strong backing might reference WHO guidelines, while a rebuttal acknowledges that regulated markets could increase supply but argues that voluntary donation incentives are better.



The Rogerian model: finding common ground



Not every discussion has to be adversarial. The Rogerian argument model, inspired by psychologist Carl Rogers, aims for compromise rather than victory. It starts by outlining the opposing side’s position fairly and empathetically. After presenting both sides, the writer or speaker identifies shared values and builds a bridge to a compromise. This model is particularly useful for polarizing topics because it forces you to listen and look for common ground.



Suppose you’re debating “Four‑day work week or flexible schedules with no set hours?” A Rogerian approach will:



Introduce the issue without taking a side



Present Side A – supporters of four‑day weeks – explaining their arguments about productivity and work–life balance.



Present Side B – advocates of totally flexible schedules – outlining their emphasis on autonomy and individual rhythms.



Find common ground, such as the shared desire for better mental health and job satisfaction.



Propose a compromise, perhaps a four‑day core schedule with flexible start times and remote options.



This method demonstrates respect for all participants and often leads to more productive discussions.



Bringing the techniques to life: examples



To see how these techniques work together, let’s build arguments around some popular VersyTalks debates.



Example 1 – Cyberbullying and criminal charges (Toulmin model)



Claim: People who commit cyberbullying that causes severe harm should face criminal charges.

Evidence: Studies show that victims of sustained online harassment experience depression and, in extreme cases, suicide.

Warrant: Society has a duty to protect individuals from harm.

Backing: Legal precedents exist for prosecuting harassment that causes physical harm.

Qualifier: In cases where bullying directly leads to serious injury or death.

Rebuttal: Some argue this infringes on free speech; however, speech that incites violence is already restricted and this proposal targets only severe cases.



Example 2 – Vegan diets in public institutions (Rogerian model)



Introduce the question of whether public institutions should mandate vegan options or preserve dietary choice. Present the ethical, environmental and health arguments for mandatory vegan menus. Then present the cultural and personal freedom arguments against mandates. Identify shared values—both sides want nutritious meals and respect diversity. Propose a compromise: require vegan options while allowing non‑vegan choices and subsidizing plant‑based dishes to encourage adoption.



Example 3 – AI age verification (Ethos, Logos, Pathos)



Ethos: As a cybersecurity professional, I’ve audited age‑verification tools.

Logos: Research indicates that over 30 % of minors misrepresent their age online and AI tools can reduce this by analysing behavioural patterns.

Pathos: Imagine a thirteen‑year‑old inadvertently entering an adult chatroom because the platform couldn’t verify age. Together, these appeals strengthen the case for AI age verification.



Learn to spot manipulative persuasion by recognizing common logical fallacies in our article.



Try Your Hand At The Best Politics Debates



Argumentation is a skill you develop by practicing. Start by joining debates such as cyberbullying criminal charges, life imprisonment vs death penalty or AI age verification. If you’re passionate about ethics debates, weigh in on mandatory vegan diets vs dietary choice or explore economic questions like organ markets legalization. You could also test out a Rogerian approach in the lively discussion on four‑day work week vs flexible schedules



For a deeper dive into rhetorical techniques, read Farnam Street’s exploration of the classical appeals