While explainability is a desirable characteristic of increasingly complex black-box models, modern explanation methods have been shown to be inconsistent and contradictory. The semantics of explanations is not always fully understood – to what extent do explanations ``explain” a decision and to what extent do they merely advocate for a decision? Can we help humans gain insights from explanations accompanying \textit{correct} predictions and not over-rely on \textit{incorrect} predictions advocated for by explanations? With this perspective in mind, we introduce the notion of dissenting explanations: conflicting predictions with accompanying explanations. We first explore the advantage of dissenting explanations in the setting of model multiplicity, where multiple models with similar performance may have different predictions. In such cases, providing dissenting explanations could be done by invoking the explanations of disagreeing models. Through a pilot study, we demonstrate that dissenting explanations reduce overreliance on model predictions, without reducing overall accuracy. Motivated by the utility of dissenting explanations we present both global and local methods for their generation.