Argumendists

Argumendists are scholars and practitioners who specialize in the analysis, construction, and evaluation of the endings of arguments. The term blends Latin argumentum with the English suffix -ist and is used in contemporary discussions to denote a focus on conclusions, closing warrants, and final appeals in reasoning and debate.

They study how premises transfer to a conclusion, the sufficiency and relevance of the closing claim, and how closing rhetoric influences persuasion. Argumendists work across philosophy, logic, rhetoric, law, journalism, and education, often in roles such as scholars, debate coaches, or communication analysts.

Methods include formal tests of validity and soundness, informal analysis of argumentative structure, discourse analysis, and the design of closing strategies. They also examine end-of-argument fallacies, such as non sequiturs, begging the question, and overgeneralization in conclusions.

The field overlaps with argumentation theory, rhetoric, critical thinking, cognitive psychology, and linguistics, sharing tools for evaluating evidence, inference, and persuasive impact. Argumendists may collaborate with educators to teach students how to construct coherent conclusions or with lawyers and journalists to craft effective closing statements.

The term is not standardized in academic curricula and appears mainly in speculative or community-based discussions about argumentation. It functions more as a descriptive label for a concentration within broader studies of reasoning than as an established profession.

There are no widely recognized individuals identified by this label; instead, the concept is used to discuss a focus within argument analysis and debate coaching. Related concepts include closing arguments, argumentation theory, rhetoric, and critical thinking.