Abstract Prevailing literature argues that arguing is the only appropriate mode of deliberation. The literature acknowledges bargaining, storytelling, and other forms of communication, but is unwilling to describe these as deliberation, properly speaking. The claim is that describing them as such would amount to concept stretching. My first thesis is that arguing exhausts neither the legitimate modes of deliberation nor the modes for effective deliberation. To do this I further develop a two-type categorization of issues I have employed elsewhere to show that argument alone is sufficient for bringing closure to issues in the first category, but bargaining is needed to reach agreements on issues in the second category. I observe that the more agreeable variant of the second category of issues constitutes a great deal of issues deliberated outside the purely theoretical classroom. Progressing from these observations, my second thesis is that bargaining is in fact the preeminent way of reaching agreements in political deliberation. To illustrate this, I demonstrate that normative differences and distributive consequences are inherent features of political issues.

中文翻译：

---

讨价还价是一种协商吗？

摘要主流文献认为，争论是唯一合适的审议方式。文献承认议价，讲故事和其他形式的交流，但不愿意将它们描述为经过深思熟虑的审议。声称这样描述它们将构成概念扩展。我的第一个论点是，争论既不浪费合法的审议模式也不浪费有效的审议模式。为此，我进一步发展了我在别处使用的问题的两类分类，以表明仅凭论点就足以解决第一类问题，但是需要讨价还价才能达成第二类问题的协议。我观察到，第二类问题的更合意的变体构成了纯理论课堂以外讨论的大量问题。从这些观点出发，我的第二个论点是，讨价还价实际上是在政治审议中达成协议的主要方式。为了说明这一点，我证明了规范差异和分配后果是政治问题的固有特征。