This thesis investigates the three so called “conflictory speech acts” (“konfliktäre Sprechakte”) “reproach”, “threat” and “conflictory warning”. They all have in common that the speaker signals that he/she is prepared for a verbal conflict. The aim of the study is to describe the three speech acts, to unite them into a group of coflictory speech acts, and to find out what their similarities and differences are. To reach this aim, we must first investigate each speech act separately as an elementary speech act, then define it and discover what indicators can be used to identify it. One main hypothesis is that reproach, threat and conflictory warning are not classifiable as basic speech acts since they operate on a “secondary speech act level”. It is discussed further what is implied by a “conflict” and how conflictory speech acts, as described in the literature relate to the conflictory speech acts investigated and defined in this study. It is also important to analyze the coflictory speech acts in the discourse in which they occur. The material investigated in this study consists of two parliamentary debates in the German ”Bundestag” where these types of speech acts often occur. On the basis of politeness theories it is investigated how reproach, threat and conflictory warning can be “face-threatening” to the hearer, how the hearer is provoked by them and which alternatives he/she has to react. It is investigated further which types and patterns of conflictory speech act sequences can be identified in the two parliamentary debates. The investigation of the three conflictory speech acts in the parliamentary debate as an argumentative discourse is linked to another aim of this study: to find out how the three conflictory speech acts “reproach”, “threat” and “conflictory warning” relate to the concepts “argumentation” and “fallacy”. The different theories defining these concepts, such as speech act theory and argumentation theories, are discussed, since reproach, threat and conflictory warning are described as elementary speech acts, and argumentation and fallacy are more complex than elementary speech acts.