Uplift vs. Teardown: a dichotomy with eternal ramifications?

I was reading an entry here at Common Grounds, Glenn Lucke's blog, about how we use our time. That led me to an epiphany about the blogosphere, about how bloggers choose to use their time and their postings. Mine are infrequent, due to workload and the many other demands on my thinking time and inspiration, but some people take vast amounts of time, posting every day, dialoging with others, and in so doing, they create one of two impressions: they offer uplift to their readers, or they offer argument.

Granted, as Glenn and others point out, we need to engage in argument, questioning and criticism--this keeps our minds sharp, keeps us thinking. But there is no shortage of argument, some of it not too clean, some of it rather emotive and sloppy. Following along the trail of an argument in a blog sometimes leaves me with an indigestive feeling in the mind, as if I'd eaten an entire meal of cotton candy, or of acidic foods, or of fatty substances. Then I need to go away from that blog, resist engagement with the teardown. Sometimes I think it's too easy for an argument to veer off-course into teardown.

The other night I was reading C. S. Lewis' remarks on how we can fall into a seductive kind of hating, where the energy of conflict itself becomes a pleasure. He points out that this is the ultimate nadir, the essential state of fallen humanity, the playground of the devil, if you will. That's the real danger lurking for us, as Christian thinkers, he implies. And I think he's right. So what do I learn from this? Avoid teardown, smackdown, the joy of conflict. That path leads downward. Argument requires the safeguard of cool reason, and constant requests for grace.