Abstract
When unable to resolve a conflict of opinion about the objective worth of an action proposal, discussants may choose to negotiate for a compromise. Is it legitimate to abandon the search for a resolution, and instead enter into a negotiation that aims at settling the difference of opinion? What is the nature of a compromise, in contradistinction to a resolution? What kinds of argument do participants typically put to use in their negotiation dialogues?
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias |
| Subtitle of host publication | Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18-21 May 2016 |
| Editors | Pat Bondy, Laura Benacquista |
| Place of Publication | Windsor, Ontario |
| Publisher | OSSA |
| Pages | 1-19 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
| Event | 11th OSSA Conference: Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias - Windsor, Canada Duration: 18-May-2016 → 21-May-2016 |
Conference
| Conference | 11th OSSA Conference |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | Canada |
| City | Windsor |
| Period | 18/05/2016 → 21/05/2016 |
Keywords
- compromise
- fallacy of bargaining
- fallacy of middle ground
- mixed difference of opinion
- negotiation
- resolution