Yes. There is often a need for provoking Debate.
"Wise men learn more by fools than fools by wise men. - Cato the Elder"
If you observe the activities on Bulletin Boards and News Servers such as Usenet a common scenario emerges.
Someone poses a problem or asks a question. Rebuttals, Denials, Jibes, Whines, unsolicited advertising etc follow. This process can get quite heated. I have been reproached (quite justly) for breaching netiquette in the heat of battle.
(To say nothing of the nasty little spammers with their lewd suggestions and off topic money-making rackets. But I have optimised my delete key to deal with them).
At some stage, somebody proposes an acceptable solution and the thread dies.
Unfortunately a great deal of chaff has to be winnowed to get at the grains of wisdom.
If you are a follower of De Bono, as I try to be, you will remember that argument is essentially negative. But we have to let some of the folks have some argument, because that is what they are used to.
But we need to be Associative and Creative. (Think PO)
This all tends towards a somewhat unusual approach.
1. I attempt to provoke responses to scenarios (Socrates/Goldratt) 2. If the herd is moving from A to B, I attempt to move from B to A (de Bono) 3. I attempt to meld the inputs and produce something new and worthwhile (de Bono) 4. And I try to keep it light, and as far as possible, Entertaining (Anderson)(After all, who makes more money, Iacocca or Cosby?)