Scale of an argument is healthy until it’s not propelled with an intention to down state a conversation. Once you fall for an argument in a fit of rage only to qualify your degree of answering back, there you are being judged for your conduct. Idea is accept if not debatable by not being defensive. Leads to a better approach towards agreement while raise your conduct with level up. At the end, an argument must lead to an outcome else it’s no worthy of debate but to prove an overpowered opinion to satisfy ego with zero acceptance…just striked my mind, why there is always an argument with zero output?…where do we qualify to mark a healthy argument with better outcome?..does our learning anywhere guide us how to read between the lines or just stay concealed with traditional approach?…argument is rude or argument for the sake of an argument is rude ?