"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 to change the course of argumentation but not to leave the quest for truth. Moreover, by agreeing to disagree, one is cognizant about the humanness of the other, for here, ones allows the other the space to rephrase, reformulate and re-express her argument.

As opposed to 'agreeing to disagree', when one declares unilateral withdrawal, one opts out of discussion, thereby, robbing the other any chance of reconsideration. Unlike, in agreeing to disagree, one is not merely blocking the specific mode of argumentation, rather one is overthrowing the very fabric of argumentation, pushing all background theorization in vein. Hence, unlike within an act of agreeing to disagree, wherein the quest for truth is the primary aim, in unilateral withdrawal, the primary aim seems to be to safeguard the fanciful, personal and subjective self-respect of a participant.

Before this notion of self-respect is pitted against that of the quest of truth, corresponding to the notions of 'agreeing to disagree' and 'Unilateral withdrawal', one should understand that, by condemning the method of 'Unilateral withdrawal', I am in no way claiming that values (in this case self-respect) are subservient to 'truth'. In fact, I want this to be noticed that, the very quest for truth, itself, is undertaken with the assumption that knowing truth will help us to secure better and all inclusive future, in terms of securing and nurturing the values of society. (one may question here that the securing values of society at large does not necessarily entail securing values of an individual. I acknowledge that this is a valid question but, I believe, this inquiry is independent in itself, and the conclusion of it should not make much difference to what I am arguing here. ) 

Following what I have said above, I argue that the right way to secure and preserve the values like self-respect is not to unilaterally withdraw from the discussion, when one feels that one's self-respect is being compromised, but the right way is, despite agreeing to disagree, to continue the discussion in different modes of argumentation in the quest for truth. This is certainly not a compromise on one's dignity; this is, rather, respecting the discourse in the search of truth, with the least possible damage that respective egos of the participants might cause in the name of self-respect. Even if I believe that it isn't the ego but self-respect that is being compromised in a given discussion, the best way still is to block that mode of argumentation, by agreeing to disagree, and continue the discussion in the different mode of argumentation.

More thoughts on it ahead....:)