The purpose of the article is to show what types of moral argumentation are involved in debates and public deliberation, and how their impact is carried out. The research focuses on socio-political communication as its object. The research method consists in the analysis of the dispute and deliberation with the tools of the theories of argumentation and deliberation with the involvement of elements of political philosophy. The substantive methodological basis is the differentiation of four tasks of the dispute and public deliberation: actional, interactional, epistemic and public, where the main thing is to make a decision about action. The research results are as follows. In communicative interaction aimed at making a decision, there are three stages: deliberation about the agenda, dispute on the merits of the case, deliberation about action. The agent acts here in three roles - as a political subject, seeking or defending its subjectivity, as an expert and as a practitioner. I identify two levels of moral coercion. The first concerns the implementation of the rules that are associated with each of the roles. The second concerns the relationship between the group and the representative acting on its behalf. In public deliberation, he fulfills his obligations to the group. A failed dispute sets a precedent for communication with a relaxation of moral coercion, which sets a precedent. The general conclusion concerns the role of moral foundations. The danger of the lack of communication requires from the parties to deliberation and from the groups they represent to constantly put forward arguments of a moral nature in order to force representatives to fulfill their obligations to the group, and the parties to the dispute and deliberation to follow its rules.