In philosophy, we often find families of arguments, that is, classes of arguments that can be related due to their structure, the discussions they engage with, or the theses they propose to defend. This work attempts to identify a new family of arguments that had not been explicitly pointed out previously. More specifically, it aims to show that there are certain arguments that share a structure that is very close to the principle of duality in projective geometry, and which, for this reason, can be called dual arguments. With this objective in mind, this paper discusses four arguments of great importance in analytical philosophy, aiming to demonstrate that, although they have been immersed in different discussions and sought to respond to different problems, they share the same structure. These arguments are: (i) Goodman’s riddle of induction; (ii) Putnam’s indeterminacy of reference; (iii) Quine’s indeterminacy of translation, and (iv) Wittgenstein’s rule-following paradox.