AGREEMENT

Agreement can be viewed from four perspectives.

(1) Consensual interactions are characterized by a preference for agreement (Bilmes 1991), see Politeness. Fully developed argumentative interactions are characterized by a preference for disagreement,

(2) The existence of “preliminary agreements” (Perelman, Olbrechts-Tyteca), in regard to both in terms of the organization of the discussion and the issues to be discussed, can be considered as a necessary condition for a fruitful conclusion of the argument. In a dialectical exchange, prior specific agreements are imposed on the participants, just as the rules of a game are imposed on the players. In a rhetorical address, the speaker seeks a priori areas of agreement with the audience.
In civic life, argumentative encounters (courts, arbitration offices, parliaments, decision-making meetings…) follow predetermined standard procedures that the participants agree to and follow  whether they consider them fair or not. See Rules; Conditions of Discussion.

(3) The production of an agreement can be seen as the ideal purpose of argumentative interactions. Combined with (2), this makes argumentation a technique for transforming preliminary agreements into a final consensus. See To persuade; Persuasion.

(4) The existence of a consensus can be used as an argument, to justify a proposal by claiming that it is the subject of a general consensus on which everyone agrees. The actual opponent of the claim thus appears therefore as an isolated eccentric individual, excluded from « our community ». His or her opinion is disqualified, and can be dismissed without bothering to refute or even consider his or her arguments, See. Dismissal.