Splitting a Difference of Opinion

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademic

91 Downloads (Pure)

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 languageEnglish
Title of host publicationArgumentation, Objectivity, and Bias
Subtitle of host publicationProceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18-21 May 2016
EditorsPat Bondy, Laura Benacquista
Place of PublicationWindsor, Ontario
PublisherOSSA
Pages1-19
Number of pages19
Publication statusPublished - 2016
Event11th OSSA Conference: Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias - Windsor, Canada
Duration: 18-May-201621-May-2016

Conference

Conference11th OSSA Conference
CountryCanada
CityWindsor
Period18/05/201621/05/2016

Keywords

  • compromise
  • fallacy of bargaining
  • fallacy of middle ground
  • mixed difference of opinion
  • negotiation
  • resolution

Cite this