This chapter is devoted to validity discourse. The reflections begin with a justification of the necessity of an argumentative approach to the clarification of the extension of the juristic concept of the validity of statutory law. The analysis consists of identifying the types and forms of validity discourse, as well as the possible outcomes of the latter. Then we go on to characterise the structure of validity discourse in the strict sense, which is based on a juristic presumption of the validity of statutory law norms, proclaiming that: "If a norm N has been promulgated in accordance with the procedure of promulgating legal norms and entered into force, and its derogation by means of a derogatory norm D, promulgated in accordance with the procedure of promulgating legal norms, has not entered into force, then the norm N is valid". In the context of that presumption, we distinguish ten methods of validity argumentation, we analyse the burden of juristic argumentation on legal validity, and we discuss the problem of classification and the different methods of analysing validity arguments. Finally, we discuss the possibilities for the practical application of the proposed theoretical model of validity discourse.