5 Strong Argumentative Essay Examples

If you’re in high school or college, there’s no escaping the argumentative essay. Teachers love assigning it, but it’s all for a good reason: to help you build your logical reasoning muscles.

Writing a standout argumentative essay is easier said than done, of course. You need to do a great deal of research, make sure your argument holds up, and address counterarguments. That’s a tall order!

Struggling to make heads or tails of what’s expected from your argumentative essay? DoMyEssay’s experts have prepared five free argumentative essay examples, along with time-tested tips on crafting a good one yourself.

Still feel stuck even after perusing our examples? Hire a DoMyEssay expert to take care of your argumentative essay!

What Makes Argumentative Essays Different?

An argumentative essay is meant to relay your stance on a topic and make a case for it using evidence and logical reasoning.

If that sounds somewhat familiar, you’re right: argumentative essays and persuasive ones have a similar goal. Both seek to convince the reader your thesis statement is correct.

However, persuasive essays often appeal to emotion and authority as much as fact and reason. Argumentative essays, on the other hand, are objective and rely strictly on logic and evidence.

A typical argumentative essay consists of:

• Introduction: hook, background information, thesis statement
• Main body paragraphs: topic sentence, evidence, counterargument rebuttal (optional), transition (check out our list of 200+ good transition words!)
• Counterargument paragraph(s) (optional): description, rebuttal, evidence for rebuttal
• Conclusion: summary of key points, reinforced thesis statement, question or statement to encourage reflection

You can use five types of argument claims in your essay:

• Fact
• Definition
• Value/Importance
• Cause and effect
• Policy

5 Excellent Argumentative Essay Examples

So, what does it take to write a standout argumentative essay? Our experts are great believers in learning by example. That’s why they prepared five examples of argumentative essays on topics ranging from social media to philosophy, along with lessons you can learn from each of them.

Research Argumentative Essay Examples

First up, we have a short argumentative essay on the potential impact of artificial intelligence. While it’s only about 300 words long, the essay masterfully delves into the core of the debate.

Is Artificial Intelligence More Likely to Benefit Humanity or Pose an Existential Threat in the Long Term?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping industries, economies, and daily life. From personalized medical treatments to self-driving cars, AI’s potential benefits are immense. However, debates about its long-term consequences raise a critical question: Is AI more likely to benefit humanity or pose an existential threat? While risks are undeniable, AI’s capacity for progress and innovation outweighs the dangers when managed responsibly.

The most compelling argument for AI’s benefits lies in its transformative impact on healthcare, climate change, and efficiency. AI-driven diagnostics are already detecting cancers earlier than human doctors. Machine learning models help predict natural disasters, allowing governments to save lives. Furthermore, AI-powered technologies can optimize energy consumption, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These contributions directly address humanity’s most pressing challenges, suggesting AI can be a force for survival rather than destruction.

Opponents argue that unchecked AI could surpass human intelligence, leading to catastrophic outcomes. Fears of “superintelligent” AI taking control of military systems or destabilizing economies are not unfounded. Yet, these risks stem not from AI itself, but from how humans design, regulate, and deploy it. With ethical guidelines, transparency in development, and international cooperation, the likelihood of AI spiraling out of control can be significantly reduced.

Ultimately, AI’s trajectory depends on human choices. If treated as a tool, guided by ethical frameworks, and regulated like other powerful technologies, AI has the potential to become one of humanity’s greatest allies. Ignoring its possibilities due to fear would mean forfeiting solutions to global problems. Thus, while vigilance is necessary, artificial intelligence is more likely to benefit humanity in the long term than to pose an existential threat.

What you can learn from it:

Despite the tight word count limit, the essay breaks down the key benefits and potential dangers in detail. The author structured the text well, too, with the paragraph on potential dangers serving as a counterargument paragraph.

However, even though the essay’s hook gets straight to the point, it could be improved with a surprising fact or statistic. 

Social Media Argumentative Essay Examples

Getting ready to take a closer look at social media in your argumentative essay? Here’s an example of one arguing that social media companies should be liable for misinformation.

Should Social Media Platforms Be Held Legally Responsible for the Spread of Misinformation?

In the digital age, social media platforms have become the primary source of information for billions of people worldwide. While these platforms connect individuals and amplify voices, they have also become breeding grounds for misinformation. From false health claims during the COVID-19 pandemic to disinformation campaigns in elections, the consequences of misinformation can be severe. The critical question arises: Should social media platforms be held legally responsible for the spread of misinformation? The answer is yes, because they profit from user engagement, have the technological capacity to monitor content, and play a central role in shaping public discourse.

First, social media companies profit directly from content circulation, regardless of its accuracy. Their algorithms prioritize sensational and emotionally charged posts to maximize engagement and advertising revenue. This means that false or misleading information is not simply tolerated; it is incentivized. If platforms benefit financially from content, they should also bear responsibility for the harm it causes. Legal accountability would encourage companies to redesign algorithms that prioritize accuracy over virality.

Second, social media platforms already possess the technological tools to combat misinformation, but often lack the incentive to use them effectively. Artificial intelligence can flag false claims, fact-checkers can verify sources, and warning labels can alert users. Yet, these measures are inconsistently applied. By introducing legal responsibility, governments would pressure platforms to implement safeguards consistently and invest more heavily in moderation systems.

Opponents argue that holding platforms legally accountable could infringe on free speech. However, the issue is not about censoring opinions, but about limiting demonstrably false claims that threaten public safety and democracy. Just as traditional media outlets can face defamation lawsuits, social media companies should not be exempt from accountability simply because of their scale.

Ultimately, misinformation is not a harmless byproduct of free expression; it has tangible consequences, from vaccine hesitancy to political violence. Social media platforms are not neutral tools, but powerful entities shaping global communication. By holding them legally responsible, society can create incentives for accuracy, protect democratic institutions, and ensure that truth is not drowned out in the digital noise.

What you can learn from it:

The author leverages transition words to clearly signpost their first and second argument, making it easy to navigate the essay as a result. They also address counterarguments in a separate paragraph, and they do so without mocking or undermining the other points of view.

On top of that, examples of misinformation in the introduction help make it more engaging.

Philosophy Argumentative Essay Examples

Our next example focuses on one of the Big Questions any philosophy student will have to grapple with: free will. The author skillfully defends a middle-ground answer to the conundrum.

Is Free Will an Illusion, or Do Humans Truly Have Agency Over Their Choices?

The question of whether humans genuinely possess free will or merely operate under the illusion of autonomy has perplexed philosophers, scientists, and theologians for centuries. On one hand, advancements in neuroscience suggest that much of human behavior can be predicted or explained through brain activity, genetics, and environmental conditioning. On the other hand, daily lived experience strongly implies that individuals make conscious choices, bearing responsibility for their actions. While determinism offers compelling explanations, humans do indeed have agency over their choices, albeit within certain constraints.

To begin, the case for free will rests on both moral responsibility and lived experience. Societies function on the assumption that individuals are accountable for their actions, a principle foundational to laws, ethics, and justice. If every decision were predetermined by brain chemistry or external factors, concepts such as justice or punishment would lose coherence. For example, when someone commits a crime, we assume they could have chosen otherwise; without this assumption, holding them responsible would be meaningless. Beyond law, our everyday decision-making, from choosing careers to forming relationships, carries a sense of deliberation and intentionality. These subjective experiences of choice suggest that free will, at least to some degree, is real.

Determinists argue that free will is an illusion because human behavior is shaped by genetics, upbringing, and unconscious processes. Neuroscientific studies, such as those conducted by Benjamin Libet, have shown that the brain initiates actions milliseconds before individuals consciously decide to act. This finding implies that what people perceive as “choice” may simply be the conscious mind catching up with predetermined neural activity. Furthermore, external conditions such as socioeconomic status, education, and cultural environment heavily influence individual behavior, reducing the scope of truly autonomous decisions.

Yet, determinism does not fully erase the possibility of agency. While genetics and environment set boundaries, humans demonstrate remarkable adaptability and self-awareness. The very capacity to reflect on influences, such as recognizing biases or breaking harmful habits, points to a unique form of freedom. For instance, a person born into poverty may face constraints, but through conscious effort, education, and resilience, they can alter their life trajectory. This capacity for reflection and intentional change is what distinguishes human free will from mere cause-and-effect determinism.

Moreover, compatibilist philosophers propose a middle ground: free will exists not as absolute independence from causality, but as the ability to act according to one’s desires, reasoning, and values. In this sense, free will does not require complete liberation from influences, but instead emphasizes autonomy within them. A smoker, for example, may feel biologically predisposed to addiction, yet still exercise agency when they choose to quit. The act of aligning choices with personal goals and values affirms a meaningful, if limited, form of freedom.

Ultimately, declaring free will an illusion risks undermining personal responsibility and human dignity. If people wholly believed that their actions were predetermined, motivation for self-improvement, accountability, and moral progress would diminish. While science demonstrates that humans are influenced by factors beyond conscious control, it does not prove that conscious decision-making is entirely powerless. Instead, humans navigate a world of constraints with the capacity to reflect, deliberate, and alter their behavior.

In conclusion, free will is neither absolute nor nonexistent; it operates within boundaries set by biology and environment. Though influenced by forces beyond our awareness, humans retain the agency to reflect, choose, and take responsibility. To deny free will outright is to deny the very essence of what it means to be human: a conscious being capable of shaping one’s own destiny.

What you can learn from it:

The introduction successfully provides a brief overview of the topic, effectively condensing centuries of debating into a couple of sentences. The argumentation overall benefits greatly from the many examples used to illustrate the author’s claims.

Finally, the thesis statement is especially worth praising. The author doesn’t fall into the “either… or” trap and instead defends a compelling yet nuanced stance.

College Argumentative Essay Examples

Next up, here’s an argumentative essay that argues against using standardized testing as a means of assessing student success.

Does Standardized Testing Accurately Measure a Student’s Readiness for Higher Education?

Few topics in education spark as much controversy as standardized testing. For decades, tests such as the SAT and ACT in the United States have played a significant role in college admissions, shaping students’ academic futures. Proponents argue that these exams provide an objective, fair, and efficient way to measure student readiness for higher education. Critics, however, contend that standardized testing fails to capture the complexity of student ability and unfairly disadvantages certain groups. When weighed carefully, it becomes clear that standardized testing does not accurately measure a student’s readiness for higher education, because it reduces learning to narrow metrics, privileges test-taking strategies over true understanding, and reinforces systemic inequalities.

To begin, standardized tests reduce education to quantifiable numbers that often ignore the broader skills necessary for success in higher education. College readiness extends beyond the ability to memorize formulas or decode passages quickly. Success in higher education depends on critical thinking, creativity, resilience, and the ability to conduct research: skills that standardized exams rarely assess. For example, a student who can write a thoughtful research paper or engage in meaningful debate might score lower on a timed multiple-choice test, even though their abilities are more aligned with college-level expectations. By privileging rote memorization and speed, standardized tests oversimplify what it means to be “ready” for higher education.

Furthermore, standardized tests often reward test-taking strategies more than genuine mastery of knowledge. Entire industries exist to coach students in exam tactics, from eliminating improbable answers to timing strategies. While these methods can raise scores, they do not necessarily reflect deeper understanding. A student with the financial means to access test-prep services may see their score increase dramatically, not because of improved academic ability, but because of familiarity with the exam format. This reality highlights that standardized tests often measure access to resources and test-prep training rather than authentic intellectual potential.

Equally troubling, standardized testing reinforces systemic inequalities that distort assessments of student readiness. Wealthier students frequently have access to private tutoring, test-prep courses, and multiple attempts at the exam, while students from under-resourced schools often take the test with little preparation. Beyond resources, cultural biases embedded in test design can privilege certain linguistic or social backgrounds, disadvantaging students who do not fit the “standard” mold. For instance, word problems or reading passages may assume cultural references unfamiliar to first-generation students or English language learners, putting them at a disadvantage unrelated to their actual ability to succeed in college. Thus, standardized tests often reflect socioeconomic disparities more than they reveal academic potential.

Proponents of standardized testing argue that these exams provide an objective measure, helping colleges compare students across diverse educational systems. Without such benchmarks, admissions committees may struggle to evaluate students from different high schools, where grading standards vary widely. Additionally, supporters claim that standardized tests can sometimes identify talented students who may not have a strong GPA due to personal or systemic challenges but who perform well under test conditions.

While these points hold some merit, they overstate the objectivity of standardized testing. No test is truly neutral; question design, scoring methods, and cultural assumptions inevitably shape outcomes. Furthermore, many colleges are finding alternative ways to evaluate students without standardized tests. For example, holistic admissions models that emphasize GPA, personal essays, teacher recommendations, and extracurricular achievements provide a richer portrait of readiness. Research has shown that high school GPA is a stronger predictor of college success than standardized test scores because GPA reflects sustained effort, resilience, and adaptability across diverse subjects over time.

In conclusion, standardized testing does not accurately measure a student’s readiness for higher education. While it offers a superficial sense of objectivity, it ultimately prioritizes narrow skills, rewards test-taking strategies, and perpetuates inequities rooted in socioeconomic status and cultural bias. True readiness for college encompasses qualities that cannot be captured in a four-hour multiple-choice exam: critical thinking, perseverance, creativity, and the ability to learn from diverse experiences. As more institutions embrace holistic and test-optional approaches, higher education can move toward a more equitable and accurate evaluation of student potential, one that values depth of learning over standardized scores.

What you can learn from it:

As this essay had more wiggle room to explore the topic (the word count amounted to 700 words), the author took advantage of the opportunity to dive deeper into counterarguments. The essay addresses them in two paragraphs: one impassively describes the counterarguments themselves, and another one rebuts them. This makes for a more in-depth essay overall.

AP Lang Argumentative Essay Examples

Preparing for an AP Lang exam? Check out this example of an argumentative essay that breaks down the few scenarios where censorship could be justified in a democratic society.

Should Censorship Ever Be Justified in a Democratic Society?

Democracy, at its core, is built on the principles of freedom, equality, and open exchange of ideas. Among these freedoms, the right to free speech occupies a central position. Without the ability to express opinions openly, critique governments, and challenge prevailing norms, democracy would quickly deteriorate into authoritarianism. Yet, even in societies that prize liberty, the question persists: Should censorship ever be justified in a democratic society? While excessive censorship can erode democratic freedoms, there are limited circumstances where censorship is not only justified but necessary.

To begin, one must acknowledge that freedom of speech in democratic societies has never been absolute. Even in nations with strong protections for expression, laws exist that restrict certain forms of speech deemed dangerous or harmful. For example, the United States prohibits incitement to violence, defamation, and child pornography, while European countries ban Holocaust denial and hate speech. These restrictions reflect a recognition that speech, when left entirely unchecked, can cause direct harm to individuals and undermine the very foundations of democracy. In this sense, censorship, when narrowly applied, serves as a safeguard rather than a threat.

The most compelling justification for censorship in a democracy arises from the need to prevent violence and protect public safety. Words can mobilize action, and history offers sobering reminders of how unchecked speech can fuel atrocities. Genocides in Rwanda and the Balkans were preceded by incendiary propaganda that dehumanized entire populations. In democratic contexts, allowing such rhetoric to spread unchecked risks eroding social cohesion and inciting violence. Censorship in these cases does not silence legitimate dissent but prevents speech designed explicitly to cause harm. Thus, targeted censorship can preserve the very conditions necessary for democratic discourse to flourish.

A second justification lies in the protection of democratic institutions themselves. Democracy depends on informed citizens making decisions based on accurate information. The unchecked spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories threatens this foundation. For example, during recent elections in multiple democratic countries, false information spread online at unprecedented rates, undermining trust in electoral outcomes and fostering political instability. While opponents may argue that combating misinformation is the responsibility of citizens rather than governments, the sheer scale of modern disinformation campaigns, often amplified by digital platforms and foreign actors, makes self-regulation insufficient. In such contexts, limited censorship, such as flagging demonstrably false claims or removing coordinated disinformation campaigns, can protect democracy from erosion.

Moreover, censorship may sometimes be justified to protect vulnerable groups from harm. Hate speech, though often defended under the banner of free expression, can marginalize minorities, perpetuate systemic inequality, and create hostile environments that silence participation from those targeted. When members of society feel unsafe or excluded from public discourse, the democratic ideal of equal participation is undermined. By curbing hate speech, democratic societies do not weaken freedom, but instead ensure that all voices can be heard in the marketplace of ideas.

Critics, however, raise valid concerns about the dangers of censorship. One major risk is the slippery slope: if censorship is justified in some cases, who decides where the line is drawn? Governments may exploit censorship to suppress dissent, critics, or political opposition under the guise of protecting democracy. Indeed, many authoritarian regimes justify repression by framing it as “necessary censorship.” For example, leaders in countries such as China and Russia argue that limiting speech protects social harmony or national security, even as they use censorship to entrench their own power. Democratic societies must therefore be vigilant, ensuring that censorship remains narrowly tailored and subject to transparency and accountability.

Another concern is that censorship may backfire, inadvertently amplifying the voices it seeks to silence. When governments ban certain ideas or platforms, those excluded may claim victimhood. This dynamic can fuel polarization and strengthen extremist movements, as seen when attempts to deplatform conspiracy theorists led to their growth in alternative online spaces. Critics argue that the solution to harmful speech is not censorship but more speech: open debate, education, and critical engagement. From this perspective, the marketplace of ideas functions best when bad ideas are confronted directly rather than driven underground.

Yet, even acknowledging these risks, it is unrealistic to argue that censorship has no place in a democracy. Absolute free speech, without any limits, fails to account for the real harm words can inflict. The challenge, then, is not whether censorship should exist, but how it can be implemented responsibly. Safeguards must include clear legal frameworks, independent oversight, and judicial review to prevent abuse. Transparency is equally essential: citizens should know when, why, and how speech is being restricted.

Ultimately, the debate over censorship in democratic societies is not about choosing between freedom and restriction, but about balancing competing values. Unlimited speech may maximize individual liberty, but it risks undermining collective security, equality, and trust – pillars upon which democracy itself rests. Conversely, overzealous censorship endangers liberty and paves the way for authoritarian control.

In conclusion, censorship can be justified in a democratic society, but only under specific, carefully defined circumstances: to prevent violence, protect democratic institutions, and ensure equal participation in public discourse. Far from contradicting democratic values, these forms of censorship can strengthen them by safeguarding the conditions that make democracy possible. What matters most is not whether censorship exists, but how it is applied – transparently, narrowly, and with constant vigilance against abuse. Democracy, after all, is not only about the freedom to speak but also about the responsibility to ensure that speech does not destroy the very freedoms upon which it depends.

What you can learn from it:

The essay makes good use of historical (e.g., Rwanda genocide) and contemporary (e.g., censorship in Russia and China) examples to reinforce its arguments. On top of that, the author dedicates two whole paragraphs to exploring the main counterarguments and two more to their rebuttal. The rebuttals themselves warrant praise for their nuance and attention to detail.

4 Pitfalls to Steer Clear Of

Our experts routinely help students improve their argumentative essays. Here are the four mistakes that they come across most often:

• Straying away from formal, objective language. Don’t appeal to the reader’s emotions or add subjective claims. Your personal experience doesn’t make for compelling evidence, either.
• Falling prey to logical fallacies and biases. Your argument has to be impartial and unprejudiced. Check for post hoc or false cause fallacies and confirmation or cultural bias.
• Overlooking counterarguments. Where you choose to address them is up to you, but you have to tackle them.
• Starting with a vague thesis statement. A debatable topic makes for an interesting essay. Your stance, in turn, has to be specific enough to be arguable in the first place.

Final Thoughts

Before you jump into working on your next argumentative essay, take your time to review our examples above. Pay attention to how the authors ensure a logical flow of information, build and lay out their arguments, use evidence to back them up, and address counterarguments. Take stock of the writing style and transitions used, too.

While you’re at it, remember that these examples are just that: examples. Don’t try to copy them; use them as inspiration and guidance, instead. Your essay should still reflect your own thoughts and arguments.

Struggling to translate your ideas into a compelling argumentative essay? DoMyEssay’s experts can build a strong argument based on your input, from the desired thesis statement to evidence. Buy argumentative essay at DoMyEssay – and get the paper you’ve been envisioning!