<p>What role, if any, ought the intent of arguers play in the interpretation of their arguments? A deductively valid argument remains deductively valid regardless of by whom it is proposed or to what end. However, informal logicians and argumentation theorists are concerned with the assessment of arguments that fall short of this exacting standard: arguments that may be inductively strong, or cogent, or persuasive, despite not corresponding to valid forms in any system of deduction. Nonetheless, some of their number seek to preserve at least one aspect of the formal logician’s evaluative stance: the attitude of indifference to arguer’s intent. Others, notably defenders of a virtue-based approach to argument, disagree. This paper sketches a possible resolution to this debate.</p>