In theory, there is broad agreement among science education stakeholders that supporting the achievement of scientific literacy is crucial for citizens to make informed and critical decisions about socioscientific issues (SSI). Likewise, it is widely held that argumentation is an important component of scientific literacy. In practice, however, university science courses give undergraduates limited opportunities to strengthen their argumentation skills. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence to explore the use of drama to enrich students' argumentation about genetically modified (GM) foods. This study was conducted in Colombia where an eventual banning of GM crops is the subject of discussion in Congress. Data include the oral and written arguments produced by seventy-five students (55 females and 20 males, 18-24 years old) in a university science course during a complete drama-based teaching-learning sequence. Coding of students' responses to open-ended questions, Cohen's d effect size, and chi-square tests were performed. The outcomes suggest that the sequence effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to enrich their GM food argumentation, producing arguments about their viewpoints and anticipating counterarguments. The evidence provided in this study contributes to the exploration of an emergent possibility in science education, namely, the use of drama as a platform for enriching students' argumentation about SSI.