"agreeing to disagree" and "Unilateral withdrawal"
In both of these cases, it seems that, there are divergent normative commitments upheld by various participants that lead them either to uphold the principle of "agreeing to disagree" or the principle of "Unilateral withdrawal". In other words, both of these seem to be tools to uphold and convey the demarcation which demarcates the boundary between the realm of rationality and the realm of non-rational values. There is, absolutely, no doubt about the fact that one is well within one's epistemic freedom to draw that boundary anywhere and anytime during the conversation. However, what matters is which of these two possible recourses, an agent takes, in order to draw that boundary. When one agrees to disagree, one is being rational, aware, and respectful about the limits of rationality, for one is exclusively blocking one particular mode of argumentation where the limits of her rationality are reached. By agreeing to disagree, one is merely requesting the other