The goal of argumentation mining is to automatically extract argumentation structures from argumentative texts. Most existing methods determine argumentative relations by exhaustively enumerating all possible pairs of argument components, which suffer from low efficiency and class imbalance. Moreover, due to the complex nature of argumentation, there is, so far, no universal method that can address both tree and non-tree structured argumentation. Towards these issues, we propose a neural transition-based model for argumentation mining, which incrementally builds an argumentation graph by generating a sequence of actions, avoiding inefficient enumeration operations. Furthermore, our model can handle both tree and non-tree structured argumentation without introducing any structural constraints. Experimental results show that our model achieves the best performance on two public datasets of different structures.