  One main goal of argumentation theory is to evaluate arguments and to
determine whether they should be accepted or rejected. When there is no clear
answer, a third option, being undecided, has to be taken into account.
Indecision is often not considered explicitly, but rather taken to be a
collection of all unclear or troubling cases. However, current philosophy makes
a strong point for taking indecision itself to be a proper object of
consideration. This paper aims at revealing parallels between the findings
concerning indecision in philosophy and the treatment of indecision in
argumentation theory. By investigating what philosophical forms and norms of
indecision are involved in argumentation theory, we can improve our
understanding of the different uncertain evidential situations in argumentation
theory.
