The present thesis is focused on argumentation analysis of French presidential TV debate between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron that took place in 2017 between the two rounds of the presidential election. The descriptive analysis method is used as a methodological framework. The candidate's performance is analysed by observing argumentation schemes, fallacies, politeness, word choice and presence of persuasive rhetorical devices, logos, ethos and pathos. The results have shown that Marine Le Pen's discourse is marked by populism, and that her strategy throughout the debate relied on attacking the opponent’s ethos, by using ad hominem arguments, as much as on pathos, by using the emotive arguments, whereas the argumentation from logos was insignificant. The results have also shown that Le Pen often uses adverbs to build the proximity and authority relation with the audience. Emmanuel Macron’s argumentation was centered primarily on logos, construction of positive ethos, and identification with the audience. He attacked his opponent for insufficient argumentation, poor preparation, and political ideology of National Front. His discourse is often marked with irony. The present work also brings to attention the importance of argumentation analysis and debating for development of critical thinking skills. The thesis also includes a proposal of a class period in the subject of Rhetoric dedicated to argumentation and debate.