Arguing consist in asking for, giving and examining reasons. This assumption, while seemingly straightforward, leads to unexpected conclusions that challenge traditional logical paradigms. A key insight is the coexistence of reasons both for and against a position, which complicates the process of reaching a reasoned conclusion. This necessitates a distinction between being a reason for something and being inferable from it. I argue that conclusions arise not merely from isolated arguments but from a holistic interplay of arguments and counterarguments. I contend that a robust logic for argumentation must focus on the dynamics of reasons within communicative practices, advocating for a shift away from traditional inferencism towards a more nuanced understanding of argumentation as an interactive process.