In practice, argumentation is often dialogical. We argue mostly not in isolation but with others by exchanging utterances. In contrast, computational approaches that look at argumentation in terms of argumentation frameworks (abstract, bipolar, structured, …) consider argumentation as a structure to be evaluated. In this talk, I first want to to briefly show how the dialogical character of argumentation shows itself in core parts of informal argumentation studies. Then I will discuss how the two perspectives on argumentation can supplement each other, by focusing on two ways and situations where argumentation and dialogues interact: when evaluating inference-claims and in advisory dialogues.