This article substantiates the relevance of personality qualities, such as epistemic virtues and epistemic vices, for the interpretation of informal argumentation in public discourse. An internalist approach to argumentation is suggested. From this perspective, "good" argumentation is defined as "virtuous" and faulty argumentation as "vicious. The interpretation of some informal fallacies of argumentation in the context of virtue theory is considered: “Ad Hominem”, "Straw Man," “Argument to Authority”. It is shown that reference to the conceptual apparatus of virtue theory reveals justified and unjustified uses of these arguments. Some criticisms of the use of the aretaic approach to argumentation in general are also discussed.