A far more constructive approach, IMHO, is to debate actions, and try to find middle ground. The reasons for which either of the disputing parties might consider the resulting action satisfactory might be completely different, but what matters is that it allows the deadlock to be resolved and for people to move on. In most cases, that is what the parties seek, and are happy to work towards and concede minor ideological points in the matter.
However, with increasing emphasis on abstract statements, people easily lose touch with reality and are prone to pointless bikeshedding, but with increasing polarization and anger, while the actual situation becomes worse.
It seems more natural that we derive principles from behavior as a bunch of abstractions convenient to communicate, rather than deriving behavior from principles.
Edit: persuasion is generally preferable to force.
Don't be a scab.
The tldr; is ("scab" professor) supports holding class even when the sky is falling because of their duty to educate. The other side (grad student organizer) argues that not holding class was okay because many undergrads supported the grad student's efforts. Scattered throughout are references to Plato/Socrates and some philosophical musings on if grad students are employees in the since of working for a business (and therefore able to unionize).