Yes... and no. The problem is that it is a one-sided and disingenuous way to end the conversation. The way it is usually used is to try to force the other side into recognizing some sort of parity. And it is often used by those who have just been slaughtered intellectually or by the facts.

@VonO Agreed. But I guess I just think it’s a way for someone to be a weasel that falls short of being “horrible”. I usually am not impressed when people use it either, but for me it’s just mildly disappointing, and they slip a bit in my estimation of them as debate partners.

Except when I know they’re good debate partners, then I figure it’s just a bid to move on to another subject.

Sometimes a thoughtful person uses it when the complexities of their argument are to many to go into right there and then.

That’s some of the usage of the term around me.

I only use the phrase when people much younger than me, in the full flush of having figured out something that explains life in some way, tell it to me with great energy, and it’s really elementary.

A teenager recently tried to teach me the “nature vs nurture” distinction, for example. I have a graduate education in philosophy and currently teach a fourth-year university psych course. This 16 year old argued that something I’d said Was asserting a 100% nurture position. I believe she thinks she obliterated in the debate.

I’ll sometimes end those kinds of situations with polite niceties that let younger or uneducated folks leave the conversation still feeling powerful. I don’t think I often use “we’ll have to agree to disagree”, but it’s that kind of soft bid to end the conversation without trying to win the debate.

It can be a handy construction, especially for people who confuse argument with opinion. Are you familiar with the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning? ( [edge.org] ).

Using reasoning in a self-disciplined way is not widespread. If someone is just being argumentative instead of arguing, I can see myself using something like “agree to disagree” to bail on a pointless conversation, if I feel like such a construction would give them the closure they need so we can end things and move on.

@Mehcanic Mostly agree. I think, for the reasons I mention above, we should eschew the construction entirely. In the case of your young friend I would probably have... well, after having a good argument ... used something like, "This is a fascinating topic that I have read a lot about. Let me recommend a couple of books to you that will give you some idea of where I am coming from, and then we can have a follow up conversation."

@VonO I sometimes try, but my recommendation of a book is evidence enough to disqualify it as interesting or helpful. I’d have to trick her boyfriend into giving it to her. Everything he recommends is God’s own truth. She already “knows” I don’t know anything. It’s not a point that requires evidence, in her mind.

But it’s important for her individuation that she do that. She’s a fiercely independent young person and needs to experience autonomy in the formation of her ideas, and to pick her own trusted authorities.

That’s why I hold back a lot and just let her work it out within her own frame of reference.

Well, if someone wanted to mean that, best to say it, eh? If you have exhausted the available data, then you would suggest both keep looking for more data, eh?
And I have never had anyone use 'agree to disagree' in a purely relationship discussion... except in jest. (Like, "I like chocolate Ice Cream." "Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree " )

I really don't understand what you mean. Could you give an example conversation?

@VonO ex: capitalism is standard for economies, no socialism is the only fair system. In reality an enconmy requires standard of both, which requires a conversation of pros and cons and how much socialist involvement there is. Police, fire department, first responders, and the military are some bench mark examples. Would you like more examples of additional points for market operations that don't involve soclist prespective.

@Phonics My post was about the use of the phrase 'agree to disagree'. I was kind of hoping that you would give me an example of the use of that phrase that would illustrate your point. I must stay I still don't understand it.

@VonO the point where I was making was when those conversations take place in the public realm the two individuals themselves might not gain ground but people observing the conversation you have a chance to win over insights and ideas between those people