The Need for Negative Critical Heated Debate

Arguing is vital for societal and individual progress, resolution, discovery and wisdom. Without unfettered honest argument, we are all doomed.

We start arguing from a young age with our parents. They argue back and the formula we are all familiar with plays out. We learn to defend our views, our values, our egos with words and statements, apologies and other tools to do so. We argue with passion directly proportional to the importance of the subject, the delicacy of our ego, the nature of our temperament and other factors.

It is natural and good for an argument to touch our soul, our raw nerves, our values. It is natural to feel passionate in an argument.

As we get older, we learn more about the periphery of arguing and its structure, its nature and potential to be improved or degraded, its value, the argument itself, becomes a personal life-long subject of inquiry and tool for development.

Then approaching adulthood we meet people who paradoxically argue against arguing. Or if not in pursuit of wholesale opposition, they presume to lay down the limits and scope of argument subjectively in a way to win. The rules and the intellectual prerequisites are argued to be abided by before proceeding. How arrogant. And thus ad hominem is born among other fallacies to win the argument by cheating - through other means than clarity, logic, empirical evidence and the more objective structural attributes of the argument.

Instead, the less cultured antagonist will stoop to mean and cheap cheating to defeat the opponent through insults and fallacies.

As if that weren't enough to discourage the activity or arguing, the honest then face a movement among people that an argument should never be negative, non-constructively critical, or offensive. The argument should not be driven or accompanied by emotion or passion.

With all these rules and limitations, the argument itself faces extinction, if such a movement gains powerful backing and succeeds in its aim.

The aim will remove the human and humanity from an argument.

We argue that these limitations beyond logic and evidence and objective tools and frameworks must be removed.

An argument without passion is merely an academic or intellectual pursuit to solve a harmless puzzle.

And of course the many things in dire need of public debate today are likely to offend by their very nature. Abortion, obesity, sexual orientation, gender identity, terrorism, religion - all gone.

What is needed now more than ever is passionate heated debate, because then we know its honest and truth is the goal, not a trophy for best person.

If we are stopped from seeking truth from the very beginning because we're too negative or too critical or offensive, then those immense complicated and important arguments will not happen and the problem will remain and will grow and will do harm to all.

Fear of arguing is a poor development of humanity. It will lead to more hatred and suffering.