Splitting a Difference of Opinion

Jan Albert van Laar; Erik C. W. Krabbe

Splitting a Difference of Opinion

Onderzoeksoutput › Academic

113 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

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?

Originele taal-2	English
Titel	Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias
Subtitel	Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18-21 May 2016
Redacteuren	Pat Bondy, Laura Benacquista
Plaats van productie	Windsor, Ontario
Uitgeverij	OSSA
Pagina's	1-19
Aantal pagina's	19
Status	Published - 2016
Evenement	11th OSSA Conference: Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias - Windsor, Canada Duur: 18-mei-2016 → 21-mei-2016

Conference

Conference	11th OSSA Conference
Land/Regio	Canada
Stad	Windsor
Periode	18/05/2016 → 21/05/2016

Toegang tot document

Splitting a difference of opinionFinal publisher's version, 343 KB

Handle.net

Permanente koppeling

Citeer dit

@inproceedings{726259845d0949d09919e6b721d0fa17,

title = "Splitting a Difference of Opinion",

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?",

keywords = "compromise, fallacy of bargaining, fallacy of middle ground, mixed difference of opinion, negotiation, resolution",

author = "{van Laar}, {Jan Albert} and Krabbe, {Erik C. W.}",

note = "0 teleenheden; 11th OSSA Conference : Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias ; Conference date: 18-05-2016 Through 21-05-2016",

year = "2016",

language = "English",

pages = "1--19",

editor = "Pat Bondy and Laura Benacquista",

booktitle = "Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias",

publisher = "OSSA",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Splitting a Difference of Opinion

AU - van Laar, Jan Albert

AU - Krabbe, Erik C. W.

N1 - 0 teleenheden

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - 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?

AB - 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?

KW - compromise

KW - fallacy of bargaining

KW - fallacy of middle ground

KW - mixed difference of opinion

KW - negotiation

KW - resolution

M3 - Conference contribution

SP - 1

EP - 19

BT - Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias

A2 - Bondy, Pat

A2 - Benacquista, Laura

PB - OSSA

CY - Windsor, Ontario

T2 - 11th OSSA Conference

Y2 - 18 May 2016 through 21 May 2016

ER -

Splitting a Difference of Opinion

Samenvatting

Conference

Toegang tot document

Handle.net

Vingerafdruk

Citeer dit