この潮流のもとにいる主な学者として、トゥルーディ・ガヴィア、ダグラス・ウォルトン、マイケル・ギルバート、ハーヴィー・シーガル、マイケル・スクライヴェン、そしてジョン・ウッズといった人々がいる。しかしながら、30年以上かかっていくつかの分野の学者たちがアムステルダム大学や国際議論学協会(en:International Society for the Study of Argumentation 、ISSA)が主催する国際的な会合で交流してきた。他の国際的な会合としては、アメリカ合衆国の全米コミュケーション協会とアメリカ法廷協会が主催でユタ州アルタで行われている隔年の会合や、オンタリオ議論学協会が主催する会合が存在する。
おそらく科学的知識に対して社会学の分野で最も過激な主張はアラン・G・グロスの「科学の修辞」(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)に見いだされる。グロスは、科学は「余すところなく[要出典]」修辞的だと考えている。これは、科学的知識はそれ自体としては理想的な知識の根拠たりえないということを意味している。科学的知識は修辞的に作り出される、つまり、その証明の共用的方法が信頼できるような程度あるいは範囲に特別な認識論的な根拠が存在する。この考えは、議論学が最初依って立っていた基礎づけ主義がほぼ完全に否定されたことを示している。
経験則という弁証的な概念は意見の相違の解決を達成する手助けとなるものである批判的議論に十の法則によって与えられる(from Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002, p. 182-183)。理論はこれを理想的なモデルとして要求する。経験的な事実だと分かると期待できるものとして要求するということはない。しかしながらこのモデルはどんな事実が、談話が駄目になり、ルールが破られる理想的な要点に近づくかを判断する上で重要なヒューリスティクス及び批判的な道具として働く。いかなるこういった違反も誤謬を構成する。たとえ誤謬にあまり重点が置かれていなくとも、プラグマ弁証法はそれらを首尾一貫したやり方で扱うために系統だった取り組みを行う。
^Bruce Gronbeck. "From Argument to Argumentation: Fifteen Years of Identity Crisis." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, ed.s Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
^See Joseph W. Wenzel "Perspectives on Argument." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, ed.s Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
^David Zarefsky. "Product, Process, or Point of View? Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, ed.s Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
^See Ray E. McKerrow. "Argument Communities: A Quest for Distinctions."
^Psathas, George (1995): Conversation Analysis, Thousand Oaks: Sage Sacks, Harvey. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-55786-705-4. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simple systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ten Have, Paul (1999): Doing Conversation Analysis. A Practical Guide, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
^see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics
^Michael McGee. "The 'Ideograph' as a Unit of Analysis in Political Argument." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, eds. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
^Charles Arthur Willard. "Some Questions About Toulmin's View of Argument Fields." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, eds. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980. "Field Theory: A Cartesian Meditation." George Ziegelmueller and Jack Rhodes, eds. Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation.
^G. T. Goodnight, "The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument." Journal of the American Forensics Association. (1982) 18:214-227. See also:en:Public_sphere
^Bruce E. Gronbeck. "Sociocultural Notions of Argument Fields: A Primer." George Ziegelmueller and Jack Rhodes, eds. Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation. (1981) 1-20.
^Robert Rowland, "Purpose, Argument Fields, and Theoretical Justification." Argumentation. vol. 22 Number 2 (2008) 235-250.
J. Robert Cox and Charles Arthur Willard, eds. Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research 1982.
Dung, P. M. "On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games." Artificial Intelligence, 77: 321-357 (1995).
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R., and Toni, F. , "An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning", Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2) 63-101 (1997).
Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R., and Toni, F. "Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation." Artificial Intelligence. 170(2), 114-159 (2006).
Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse 1993.
Frans Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialected approach. 2004.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. et al. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richard H. Gaskins Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse.Yale University Press. 1993.
Michael A. Gilbert Coalescent Argumentation 1997.
Trudy Govier, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. 1987.
Dale Hample. (1979). "Predicting belief and belief change using a cognitive theory of argument and evidence." Communication Monographs. 46, 142-146.
Dale Hample. (1978). "Are attitudes arguable?" Journal of Value Inquiry. 12, 311-312.
Dale Hample. (1978). "Predicting immediate belief change and adherence to argument claims." Communication Monographs, 45, 219-228.
Dale Hample. (1977). "Testing a model of value argument and evidence." Communication Monographs. 14, 106-120.
Dale Hample. (1977). "The Toulmin model and the syllogism." Journal of the American Forensic Association. 14, 1-9.
Trudy Govier, A Practical Study of Argument2nd ed. 1988.
Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, "Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme." The Quarterly Journal of Speech. LXVI, 251-265.
Ralph H. Johnson. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair. "Logical Self-Defense", IDEA, 2006. First published, McGraw Hill Ryerson, Toronto, ON, 1997, 1983, 1993. Reprinted, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 1994.
Ralph Johnson. and Blair, J. Anthony (1987), "The Current State of Informal Logic", Informal Logic, 9(2–3), 147–151.
Ralph H. Johnson. H. (1996). The rise of informal logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press
Ralph H. Johnson. (1999). The relation between formal and informal logic. Argumentation, 13(3) 265-74.
Ralph H. Johnson. & Blair, J. A. (1977). Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. US Edition. (2006). New York: Idebate Press.
Ralph H. Johnson. & Blair, J. Anthony. (1987). The current state of informal logic. Informal Logic 9, 147-51.
Ralph H. Johnson. & Blair, J. Anthony. (1996). Informal logic and critical thinking. In F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. (pp. 383–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Ralph H. Johnson, Ralph. H. & Blair, J. Anthony. (2000). "Informal logic: An overview." Informal Logic. 20(2): 93-99.
Ralph H. Johnson, Ralph. H. & Blair, J. Anthony. (2002). Informal logic and the reconfiguration of logic. In D. Gabbay, R. H. Johnson, H.-J. Ohlbach and J. Woods (Eds.). Handbook of the logic of argument and inference: The turn towards the practical. (pp. 339–396). Elsivier: North Holland.
Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, 1970.
Joseph W. Wenzel 1990 Three perspectives on argumentation. In R Trapp and J Scheutz, (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honour of Wayne Brockreide. 9-26 Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL
John Woods. (1980). What is informal logic? In J.A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Informal Logic: The First International Symposium .(pp. 57–68). Point Reyes, CA: Edgepress.
John Woods. (2000). How Philosophical is Informal Logic? Informal Logic. 20(2): 139-167. 2000
Charles Arthur WillardLiberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 1996.
Charles Arthur Willard, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of KnowledgeUniversity of Alabama Press. 1982.
Harald Wohlrapp. Der Begriff des Arguments. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Wissen, Forschen, Glaube, Subjektivität und Vernunft. Würzburg: Königshausen u. Neumann, 2008 ISBN 978-3-8260-3820-4