Argumentation is often an attempt to resolve disagreement, but it is not always possible to reach a resolution. This is illustrated in law where multi-judge trials often end with a split decision. Not only do the judges disagree as to outcome (dissenting opinions), but also as to the reasons for a given outcome (concurring opinions). These disagreements can be explained in terms of different values held by the judges concerned. But while the role of values in determining which arguments are accepted has been widely explored, values can also determine which arguments can be constructed. The paper provides an analysis of this phenomenon.