peer reviewed ; This study offers an analysis of independent conditional clauses (ICCs) that are used with argumentative functions in spoken Dutch. ICCs are used as arguments when they serve to motivate the speaker’s implied standpoint regarding a preceding propositional content, termed the trigger. Two basic types of argumentative ICCs can be distinguished, which are termed ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ arguments. Direct arguments express a contextually given premise on the basis of which a conclusion about the speaker’s standpoint regarding a preceding trigger can be drawn. Indirect arguments, by contrast, express a condition that – if it had held – would have warranted the conclusion, but its counterfactual interpretation resulting from hypothetical backshift signals that the speaker knows that this condition is not fulfilled, and hence that the implied standpoint regarding a trigger is not valid either. We argue that direct and indirect ICCs instantiate independent instances of epistemic non-predictive conditionals and hypothetical predictive conditionals (Dancygier 1993, 1998) respectively, and that they set up propositional-logic arguments of different classic forms, i.e. the modus ponendo ponens form (direct ICCs) and the denying the antecedent form (indirect ICCs). However, they do not explicitly express the conclusion of the argument, as they lack a main clause, but leave it to be inferred by the addressee.