There's an online meme that goes, "Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling with a pig in the mud; after a couple of hours, you realize the pig likes it." It's a prevalent enough form of communication in our field that most of us can think of an argument we had recently. Vim versus Emacs. Test-driven development versus whatever is the opposite of test-driven development. Python versus Ruby. JK, that's totally not a debate. Python is clearly superior in every way [insert smiley, winky, troll face here]. Argument as a problem-solving tool is one of the big issues hurting diversity on engineering teams. <br><br> First, let me explain what I mean by an argument culture. An argument is the use of aggressive opposition to weed out weak logic, keeping the strongest ideas possible. The philosophy behind using arguments for problem-solving is that attacking the weak parts of an idea will leave the best solutions. The metaphor for argument in our culture is war. We think of people we argue with as <em>opponents</em>, we <em>attack</em> their position and defend our own, we can gain or lose <em>ground</em>, and ultimately we can win or lose arguments—just like battles [<a href='http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426140608&sr=8-1&keywords=metaphors+we+live+by' target='_blank'>1</a>]. Arguments are combative and competitive interactions, and can lead to aggressive behavior between opponents. As Deborah Tannen says in her book <em>The Argument Culture</em>, "[An] argument culture urges us to approach the world—and the people in it—in an adversarial frame of mind" [<a href='http://www.amazon.com/The-Argument-Culture-Stopping-Americas/dp/0345407512' target='_blank'>2</a>].