Argumentative scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning are scaffolds that prompt learners to take over distributed roles and to move through a sequence of activities that specify an argumentative learning discourse. Argumentative scripts may lead to suboptimal effects on learning outcomes when their level of scaffolding does not fit learners' prerequisites regarding argumentation. This study compares the effects of three different levels of argumentative scripts on learners' argumentation knowledge and learning motivation. Results show that university freshmen in the context of mathematics seem to learn best when the argumentative script targets a medium level, scaffolding the sequence of social discourse, but not necessarily the construction of single arguments. Non-significant results regarding the effects on motivational variables speak against the concern that a too detailed structure of scripts may be detrimental for learning due to reduced learning motivation.