Parliamentary procedure might best be taught in a context specific format; it would be better understood by students if not taught as a "stand alone" subject. Since the basic concepts of argumentation theory--propositions, stasis, and presumption and burden of proof--are reinforced by the rules of parliamentary procedure, instructors can teach more effectively by combining these two disciplines. Linking parliamentary procedure and argumentation can allow scrutiny of each step along the way to a decision. This parliamentary differentiation between debatable and nondebatable propositions promotes candid, critical discussion. Similarly, the issues of concern to a deliberative body cannot move forward until the point of contention, or stasis, is resolved in some manner; parliamentary procedure provides the set of rules with which to determine exactly the point of stasis. Finally, to fulfill the goal of argument as procedure, those who propose a change in the parliamentary policy bear the burden of proof and must provide sufficient reason for the change. Otherwise, it is presumed that the policy will remain the same. A course that combines these concepts of argumentation with the rules of parliamentary procedure would attract more students, provide a useful preliminary course, and help teach students the interaction of procedure and product/process. Such a course could be constructed around (1) an examination of the practical aspects of argumentation; (2) an introduction to basic parliamentary procedure; (3) a linking of argument and parliamentary procedure concepts; (4) initial structuring of arguments, including the fundamentals of case building and analysis; (5) both theoretical and practical refutation and rebuttal techniques; and (6) strategies emphasizing the opportunities for persuasive advantage provided by the constraints of procedural rules. (JD)