Communication enables us to share our ideas, feelings, beliefs and opinions with others. Therefore it constitutes the very root of our civilization. However, in order for communication to be meaningful, it must initially be understood. To be understood, the message must be communicated in a language we know, with reasoning based on what we already understand (as knowledge). Definitions often function as such premises, and starting points, for our reasoning.

Definitions can be explicit, but mostly appear as implicit argumentative perspectives, which is why this essay intends to investigate the argumentative nature of definitions. More specifically I have chosen to examine the definitions Amnesty International use in defense of their decision to advocate for the decriminalization of sex work more closely. The theoretical framework consists of rhetorical theories about argumentation.

The results show how one, by analyzing definitions as argumentative perspectives, is able to alert problematic and questionable premises that went unnoticed in the overall examination of Amnesty Internationals argumentation.