<p>Scientific argumentation is an important practice for developing scientific literacy. This study provides an exploratory validation of the Peer Argumentive Discourse Style (PADS) measure—originally developed in Hebrew—within an English-speaking science education context. Confirmatory factor analysis of data from 383 U.S. undergraduates supported the original four-factor structure (deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, quick consensus-seeking, and private deliberation), with satisfactory model fit and discriminant validity. This finding contrasts with prior cross-disciplinary validation that supported a three-factor structure, underscoring the potential role of disciplinary context in the manifestation of argumentative discourse styles. However, suboptimal convergent validity and reliability—particularly for the quick consensus-seeking and private deliberation subscales—indicate that the PADS remains a developing instrument requiring refinement. These measurement limitations raise questions about whether quick consensus-seeking should be retained as a distinct dimension or whether alternative factor specifications may ultimately prove more robust. The study advances the theoretical understanding of argumentative discourse style as a multifaceted, potentially context-sensitive construct, while acknowledging the need for continued psychometric scrutiny. Future research should prioritize item refinement, systematic comparison of four-factor and three-factor structures, cross-cultural validation, and instructional applications to develop the PADS into a robust tool for both research and the promotion of evidence-based argumentative discourse in science classrooms. </p>