So I'm a seeker of knowledge, lifelong learner type of guy so I'm always inquisitive about stuff but I always try to ask my questions with as much background knowledge as I can. Questions always lead to more questions and more often than not I end up into debates with people. However, I'm told I can be frustrating because I never "get heated" when I argue, I'm always very emotionally flatlined as I pose questions and present my points. Many of my friends says this indicates I lack passion in my viewpoint and they don't like to argue/debate with people that are not passionate about what they are saying because I come across as uninterested in the topic at hand. Furthermore they said because I always have background knowledge or have at the very least worked on making myself learned they say it comes off as arrogant. I should try to just "go with how I feel, not how I think," as they say.
From my vantage point people that argue passionately are actively making their arguments subjective (as opposed to me who's striving to present myself as close to objective as I can although never truly reaching pure objectivity) and therefore are more likely to present skewed data or say things that are less than logically sound and leads me to second guess what they present. As far as the arrogance goes I feel like a scientist that's put the work into observing data and making a conclusion based off the data presented. There is a confidence to the conclusion because of the observation, not an arrogance.
So my question to the OT group, which type of arguer are you and why does the inverse of you frustrate you, what specifically about how others present things bothers you?