This paper disentangles the multiple facets of the ambivalent evaluation of compromise in politics. It identifies five main objections against compromises and their rebuttals. The first two objections are classic, and they both appeal to adherence to values, in terms of either their inviolability or their consistency. Another objection asserts the irreducibility of conflicts, and it is driven by hostility to a conception of politics that favors moderation. The last two objections are concerned with domination: compromises are detrimental to disadvantaged groups, or they limit the diversity of debates. Our systematic scrutiny shows that the rebuttals do not annihilate but rather qualify the validity of most normative and empirical claims against a politics of compromise. A fine-grained arbitration between possible objections and rebuttals pleads for a multidimensional and nuanced assessment of the value of compromise in democracy, which challenges political discourses that convey the polymorphic disdain of compromise.