Robert Fogelin has argued that in deep disagreements, resolution cannot be achieved by rational argu-mentation. In response, Richard Feldman has claimed that deep disagreements can be resolved in a similar way to more everyday disa-greements. I argue that Feldman's claim is based on a relatively superfi-cial notion of "resolution" of a disa-greement whereas the notion at stake in Fogelin's argument is more sub-stantive. Furthermore, I argue that Feldman's reply is based on a particu-lar reading of Fogelin's argument. There is an alternative reading, which takes the central concern to be the role of common ground in argumentation. Engaging with this version of Fo-gelin's argument is also a worthwhile endeavour.