In the discussion between pragmadialectics and epistemological approach to argumentation, I put forth standard objections to pragmadialectics insofar as its (pragmadialectical) philosophical estate truly shapes other estates of the pragmadialectic programme (theoretical, analytical, empirical and practical estate). Specifically, insofar as this influence is present in the very definition of (good) argument and fallacy theory. In contrast to uncharitable interpretation and harsh critique, I describe here pragmadialectics under a charitable interpretation as a merely partially considered and articulated philosophical position on central notions of rationality, reason, justification, viz. primarily epistemological and logical problems whose scope and complexity reach far beyond Van Eemeren and Grootendorst's ambitions in designing argumentation theory. A conjunctive condition – basing positive theory of good argument on pertinent philosophical disciplines (logic and epistemology) accompanied by a complete and systematic fallacy theory – is therefore forwarded as crucial in deciding between pragmadialecticians and epistemological theoreticians of argumentation. I favour epistemological approach due to its superior positive theory of argument, but still treat it as unsatisfactory due to authors whose primary interest in argumentation theory are fallacies. Additionally, theoretical status of argumentation theory is described first and foremost as an important educational programme containing certain topics and problems which are discussed in logic and epistemology at a more sophisticated level – or at least the solutions to those problems are to be expected from those disciplines – but not an independent theory. Here I stress that terms 'programme' and 'educational' should not be understood as derogatory terms, on the side of logic and epistemology, nor lightly, on the pragmadialectics side.