Few empirical studies in Science Education have investigated the contributions of integrating scientific practices such as argumentation and modelling. In this article, I examine the characteristics of high school students' argumentative dialogues in different modelling situations. From this, I discuss the influences of modelling and the nature of each situation analysed on the characteristics of the students' argumentative dialogues. One didactic unit consisting of sets of modelling activities in everyday, scientific and socio-scientific situations was applied in a regular class. The tool that describes argumentative dialogues in science teaching contexts across the varied and interrelated dimensions was applied to high school students' argumentative dialogues that took place during modelling situations. Data collection (involving audio and video recording plus observations made by the researcher) revealed that students engaged in different argumentative dialogues, which were made up of different types of dialogic and meta-dialogic moves. Most of these moves were relevant and also contributed to the construction of knowledge in all modelling situations. The results also show that the nature of the situation can influence specific aspects of students' argumentation, but such influence does not interfere with the quality of their argumentative dialogues; the argumentative dialogues are connected to persuasion, information sharing and sharing the same idea in all modelling stages; and the modelling influences the students to engage in quality argumentative dialogues that ultimately contributes to the construction of knowledge of different natures. Implications for future research and classroom practice are presented and discussed.