I am what most people would describe as non-confrontational. Conflict is something I generally avoid, because life usually is more enjoyable with a lack of yelling and general discomfort. Catharsis is the only upside of arguments, it allows everyone to speak their mind, which is something even if nothing is resolved.
I do think there are arguments that are completely necessary, and this is coming from someone who changes the topic of conversation when politics is brought up at family gatherings. Any time anyone starts to promote anything sexist, racist, or homophobic; that is when I start to argue. Stereotype promotion is a line I draw. In general, I dislike things that make others uncomfortable. If it is bad enough, I will step up and argue against someone’s behavior. This is a line for me, because I don’t always argue things that I think are right.
I think arguments become a problem when they go on to the point that any meaning has been taken out of the discussion. This is one of the main critiques of the 24 hour news cycle, with so much commentary, when does the argument become circulation of the same few points? Arguments also become a problem when they delve into personal attacks, as the issue takes a backseat. Arguments should always have an ending point, because closure should be more important than one different iteration of the argument.
Necessary arguments can still be problematic. I think they are problematic for the reasons that I listed above, simply that the argument loses value if all of its points are repeated over and over. This is can be difficult for lingering problems. If the issue persists, it should be addressed, but there is a point where the argument stops being valuable.