Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy

The paper offers a theo retical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumen tation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on "good" argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by ana lysing a detailed structure of practi cal argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a com parative approach to practical rea son. I argue that given the compara tive structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.