Rational choice theory is an economic theory that explains human decision-making. To simplify, it is a basic attempt to understand social, political and economic relationships and institutions, built on rationally selfish agents who want to maximize their own utility. Utility in this context describes the degree to which the individual wants to examine a goal to satisfy his or her preferences. The theory has become the core of neoclassical economics and is used in all social fields in an attempt to simplify and justify human action. The spread of rational choice theory has raised numerous criticisms. In this essay I will discuss the debate that rational theorists and their critics have created by first highlighting the key points of the debate; secondly the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions of both sides of the debate, and finally conclude by deciding which side is more persuasive based on your argument and providing an alternative. The positivist and interpretivist division can summarize the debate on rational choice theory. The main key points of debate between rational choice theorists and their critics arise from the nature of the approach to the study of social phenomena. A rational choice theorist wants to build modules to simplify the social and make it scientific, following the scientific method of conducting research. On the other hand, critics, who are mainly researchers from the interpretive side, argue that the social cannot be simplified by a grand theory, human action and political phenomena are more complex than can be explained by a grand theory (Marsh and Stocker, 2010). . On this basis the debate also includes the ontological, epistemological and methodological differences between the two... half of the article... is downgraded from a theory that can be used to build modules for all aspects of the social (Hay, 2004) . Suggestion: my suggestion after this debate is the need to have a framework that can accommodate within it all the other theories of political analysis. And I believe that rational choice, when used as a framework, has the ability to do this. The reason why rational choice ignores ideas, emotions, gender, class and institutions is the simple fact that they do not have a quantifying aspect. But if the researchers behind these ideas were able to draw a quantifying aspect from them, rationalists might be able to add it to their models creating a better understanding of politics in a scientific way. While such an attempt would require breaking a taboo in the study of international relations where rivals will work together, it should be attempted, further research is needed.