[David8696]

I agree with what you have to say at least 99.98%—and I'm probably misinterpreting the other .02%. But I'd like to point out that while "arguing for the sake of arguing" is an absolutely futile and pointless exercise, and beyond that it's actively negative as far as interpersonal relationships—all of which you perfectly articulated—there is a large difference between arguing for the sake of arguing and having a constructive debate in which two parties offer their different beliefs. Chief Delphi is a *forum*—a place for various people to offer varied opinions on a variety of topics. And the important part is *offer* those opinions. If, to use your example, one person thought FTC was the equal of FRC and another person thought FRC was superior, there would be nothing wrong with the two presenting their points in a calm, clear, friendly fashion. That's why we have conversation in the first place. It's when things start becoming hostile, when personal insults are exchanged or people start claiming the other person is absolutely wrong and stupid for having their opinion, that debate turns into argument, and that's when it becomes a problem.

Oh by the way, it should be noted that this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about: I'm being (as far as I know) civil, I'm offering up a series of thought-out points, and I'm not smashing down anyone's opinion. However, the fact that we may (or may not) have slightly differing viewpoints doesn't mean neither of us can talk about them.