Abstract
A key challenge for argumentation theory is to engage the immense capacity humans have developed to design contexts for communication across scale. Recent theoretical developments regarding argumentative polylogues have challenged prevailing dyadic presumptions by advancing the proposition that human communication is typically complex with regard to the status of its participants, the content at stake, and the definition of the situation. The design stance highlights the intentional interventions for augmenting human interaction and reasoning to manage differences and disagreement in complex communication. The ever-present possibility of designing for polylogue calls for scaling argumentation theory to attend to the arguments about argument in the design of products, devices, and services in the built environment for communication and activity. This point is developed here by incorporating the concept of infrastructure, and its institutionality, into argumentation analysis.