In a series of recent papers beginning with their “Splitting a difference of opinion: The shift to negotiation” (Argumentation 32:329–350, 2018a) Jan Albert van Laar and Erik Krabbe claim that it is sometimes reasonable (i.e., rationally permissible) to shift from a critical discussion to a negotiation in order to settle a difference of opinion. They argue that their proposal avoids the fallacies of bargaining (substituting offers for arguments) and middle ground (mistaking a compromise for a resolution). Against this permissive policy for shifting to negotiation, we argue that the motivating reasons for such shifts typically fail, and that the permissive policy avoids neither fallacy while structurally incentivizing two types of strategic maneuvering that constitute rational and argumentative hazards: argumentative overcharge and abandonment of discussion.

中文翻译：

---

没有妥协的余地：抵制转向谈判

在最近发表的一系列以“分歧意见：转向谈判”（Argumentation 32:329–350, 2018a）开头的论文中，Jan Albert van Laar 和 Erik Krabbe 声称这有时是合理的（即合理允许的）从批判性讨论转向谈判以解决意见分歧。他们争辩说，他们的提议避免了讨价还价（用提议代替论据）和中间立场（将妥协误认为解决方案）的谬误。反对这种转向谈判的宽松政策，我们认为这种转变的动机通常是失败的，并且宽松政策在结构上激励两种构成理性和争论性风险的战略操纵时，既避免了谬误，又避免了谬误：