This study aims to examine the role of argumentation in the process of philosophical counseling and to explicate the structure of the counselor–client dialogue within the relevant theoretical framework. A significant portion of the conceptual, ethical, and existential problems faced by contemporary individuals is associated with patterns of thought nourished by implicit assumptions and unexamined beliefs. In this context, philosophical counseling enables individuals to reassess their judgments through a critical dialogue. Argumentation theory, in turn, provides a fundamental analytical tool that renders this process systematic and amenable to analysis. A qualitative method was adopted in the study; document analysis and the fictional case technique were employed. The theoretical framework is grounded in Stephen Toulmin’s model of argument and Douglas Walton’s dialogue-based approach to argumentation. Through the fictional case titled “Success and Being Valued” constructed in line with this framework, the client’s statements were analyzed, and it was demonstrated that these statements contain argumentative structures involving premises, conclusions, and implicit assumptions. The findings indicate that the client’s statements are not limited to emotional judgments; rather, they also involve reasoning that includes generalizations and fallacious causal inferences. While argumentative analysis renders these errors visible, the process of conceptual analysis and critical questioning contributes to the development of more consistent and balanced judgments on the part of the client.
Özlem Küçükşabanoğlu (Fri,) studied this question.