I don't agree with this. I think the root problem in many "arguments" is that the two parties are speaking completely different languages or using two different rule sets. One side will use logical sounding arguments that aren't really logical, and the other side will actually use logic. The logical side isn't "running away" from this argument. They are taking it head on, as an argument should be taken.
Or, you both need to admit to yourselves that what is going on is just political theater and not really argumentation. Which is fine, but just different.
But let's not throw away all of our logical tools because some idiot doesn't know how to use them.
In my opinion the root problem is a lack of recognition on what the assumptions and intentions are on either side. You can correctly apply logic to flawed assumptions and end up in some weird places. Similarly you can take the same set of facts and use different intentions to construct seemingly rational arguments out of them which end up at incompatible outcomes. Real world facts tend to be vague and messy, and are largely unsuitable for reasoning with.
Or, you both need to admit to yourselves that what is going on is just political theater and not really argumentation. Which is fine, but just different.
But let's not throw away all of our logical tools because some idiot doesn't know how to use them.