These five basic universal argumentative operations ar

1) Categorization
2) Nomination
3) Definition
3) Classification
4) Syllogism and Set Theory

Proper names have their own specifc argumentative resources. The following description applies to common names; the best designation here would be “full words.”

By naming concrete or abstract beings, we attach them to the corresponding category corresponding to this definition, to the name of this category, and to  definition(s) of that  name and that category.
The category associated with the definition of a name groups beings on the basis of the specific characteristics of their member, and/or their similarities with the other members of the category, and-or their resemblance to an exemplary member of this category.

An Aristotelian classification consists in a combination of more or less general categories (genre) and sub-categories (species), typically under the format of a « Porphyrian tree”.
Jorge Luis Borges famous Chinese classification is fictional..

Syllogistic reasoning (“set theory” reasoning) is the most powerful argument scheme exploiting the cognitive resources of a well-done classification.

All A, all B, all C are M
=> some M are A, some are a B, some are C

A syllogism is  evaluated as valid or invalid (“paralogism”) through a specific set of rules (“rules of syllogism”, or, preferably through the Venn diagram method.

***

The classification method that is, naming – defining -systematically categorizing things, is considered by Claude Levi-Strauss as  « the science of the concrete, » [‘la science du concret”] as « the” fundamental science shared by all human beings (1962], ch. 1).

Following Levi-Strauss, we argue that naming – defining – categorizing – classifying a being is the fundamental, universal, most discreet productive and efficient, set of argumentative operations.
Examples can be found in the quoted entries, as well as in the pair a pari argument / argument from the opposite term.

(*) Not to be confused with the use of the same expression in computing.

***

The argument of the name necessarily functions in  the Chinese language as in all languages having « full words », that is a lexicon where speakers find the necessary resources to categorize and designate concrete or abstract beings, events, circumstances, etc.
Thus, the argument of the name must be considered as a linguistic-cognitive universal, and an expression of « subjectivity in language” in action (Benveniste, (1963), p. 259-250).

Benveniste, 1963 / [1958], De la subjectivité dans le langage. In Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris, Gallimard. p. 258-266