Although previous research has addressed the characteristics of debates and argumentation I argue there is a need to expand the framework for analysing the forms of such oral activities, particularly regarding expressions of differences in opinion. Commonly applied analytical tools generally recognize just two forms, antagonistic and deliberative. By operationalising a conceptual set of categories, I show that this is too narrow. A third form (agonistic) can be recognized based on Chantal Mouffe’s theory of democracy and politics, and another form that is oriented to relativism. Thus, I propose an analytical framework with a set of four forms to address the nature of differences of opinion. In addition I provide empirical examples from a variety of contexts to support each form.