To me, "argument" is not a bad thing.

An argument is different from a "fight."

An "argument" is merely the offering of an opinion combined with evidence and reasoning--sometimes in the face of opposing arguments.

For example:

Galileo argued that Jupiter is orbited by at least four moons. His evidence was he had watched it happening through his telescope.

The church's argument against him was that the Pope disagreed.

Then the church raised it to the level of "fight" by saying anyone who says Jupiter has moons is a heretic, and if you say that again you will be arrested, imprisoned, and maybe executed.

Glaileo turned out to be right.

Kekule made an argument about the molecular structure of a chemical call Benzene. He argued that the reason that Benzene molecules has a weight, boiling point, and stability other than predicted by orthodox chemistry of the time, was because Benzene was actually ring-shaped hexagonal molecule.

His famous critic took it to the level of "fight" by referring to the fact that Kekule belonged to a veterinary school, and so could not possibly be a legitimate chemist.

Turns out Kekule was right.

Nothing wrong with arguing. But when arguments are countered with insults, ridicule, persecution, or violence, that's a problem.