Arguments ???

                                     
The word argument can be either good or bad, depending on context. So too the word strive. Jesus tells His followers to strive in Luke 13:24. But older Bible translations are unhelpful in having 2nd Timothy 2:24 say that we must not strive (or chide or wrangle). Modern translations clarify by saying we must not quarrel or be quarrelsome.  More definitive words are preferable.  Specifically, debate, which is clearly good, and as mentioned, quarrel, which is clearly bad. 

In both debates and quarrels, opposing positions are put forward, and both can either be spoken or written.  But while quarrel is akin to bickering, shouting match, squabble, and tumult, debate is akin to deliberation, disputation, opposing viewpoints, and parley.  Debates are a must. Without them, every idea or behavior, no matter how crazy or harmful, is allowed to gain universal acceptance and dominate because they are left unchallenged.  What looks good on the surface can be bad and what looks bad under cursory examination can be good.  So, the crucible of debate forges truth. Consider the value of the 1858 Lincoln/Douglas debates. But again, ensure it is truly a debate, not quarrel. 

Here are guidelines: Debates never become a physical fight and insults are uncommon. But in quarrels, insults fly on both sides and can become physical. Debaters often give each other equal time and sometimes use a moderator. But quarrelers never use a moderator, and one person tries to hog the conversation. Debaters use skilled techniques and take turns. But quarrelers use unskilled arguing and often talk over each other. Debaters are knowledgeable of their opponent's position and welcome a public forum. But quarrelers are usually ignorant of their opponent's position and quarrels are usually a private conflict. Debaters have done their research and mutually decide to dispute a subject. But quarrelers lack research, and one party unexpectedly attacks. 

But also, for fair debate, both parties must be matched in ability. If a cannon shell caliber person touting position A clobbers a pellet caliber person holding position B, B can easily be right and A wrong. The disparity renders the debate meaningless.  YouTube staff often promotes mismatched debates where an opponent of their position is either uneducated, unprepared, or holds bizarre ideas, in order to discredit that position. Strong defenders of opposing positions are often bypassed. Sometimes dirty tactics involve tampering with the opponent's microphone and speaker before it is their turn to speak, so it doesn't work or emits a horrible screeching when they are speaking. Or have the Internet connection cut out only when the disfavored side speaks. 

Some will refuse debate, saying, "I don't want to argue."  Or say that your position is so obviously wrong, it's not worth debating.  Others will just block you completely with no explanation. These bad attitudes betray their lack of ability to defend their position. Or that their position is a piece of S. Or both. The only time I ever turned down a debate was when someone challenged me with the Demiurge theory.  That's because that position was already discredited a thousand years ago, and very few people today have even heard of it. So, debating it would only serve to give it publicity. Also, trivial matters are usually best avoided. 

If someone refuses to debate after you have given them fair opportunity, or persists on harmful error despite debate, you can give a public denouncement in the form of a rebuttal or refutation. This is very ethical. Examples are Tertullian Against Marcion (circa AD 208), Origen Against Celsus (circa AD 248), St. Jerome Against Jovinianus (circa AD 393), and St. Ambrose's Sermon Against Auxentius (AD 386). Auxentius had challenged Ambrose to a public disputation. However, he appointed judges, all of whom already supported his positions and opposed Ambrose's positions, to decide who was right. So, Ambrose rightfully declined the rigged situation. 

But suppose someone claimed they could beat a man crowned the world's toughest man in an ultimate fighting championship. They said they had superior fighting techniques. So, someone tried to set up a fair fight. But the claimant then declined, saying they didn't want to hurt the crowned champion. We would naturally conclude he was full of crap. But at least such a person can claim to want to avoid physical harm.  But one who refuses debate and will not bring forth one more able to defend that position, we accept that? Don't be deceived!  And contemplate what I've said.