argumentoimme

Argumentoimme is a theoretical term used in the study of argumentation to describe a type of reasoning in which the emphasis is on the process and criteria of justification for the argument itself, rather than on the specific conclusion. It frames reasoning as an object of analysis, drawing attention to how claims are supported and how the argumentative method is evaluated.

The term arises in discussions of meta-argumentation and digital rhetoric to denote arguments that defend the method of reasoning as such, rather than merely defending a particular outcome. In this sense, argumentoimme arguments are self-referential about their own logic and justification.

Core characteristics include explicit articulation of warrants and backing, transparent assumptions, and scaffolding that guides the audience through the reasoning steps. These arguments often foreground the criteria for evaluating evidence and the relevance of the data used, making the process legible to the audience and reviewers.

Examples: In a policy debate, a speaker explains the normative framework for judging evidence before presenting any facts. In a classroom setting, a tutor models a argumentoimme approach by outlining the reasoning method used to reach a conclusion, then applies it to the evidence.

Reception and critique: Some scholars view argumentoimme as a valuable tool for improving critical thinking and transparency in reasoning. Critics contend that foregrounding method can slow persuasion and reduce persuasive impact, especially in time-limited or highly audience-driven contexts.

See also: meta-argument, argumentation theory, rhetoric, critical thinking.

This article describes a hypothetical concept and is intended as a concise overview for reference.