Its a difficult topic, I would say that varies a lot. Its not the same to argue with a psicopath, with a triggered person that had some traumatic experience or with a "normalistic". Its not the same when I am in deffensive mode or when the other person feel ofended by me. They are all called argues, but they are very different.
I agree that discussing with an abusive manipulative person (lets call it psicopath even knowing not all of them behave like that) has no use. But that is not usually what happens, our couples may be angry or aparently irrational at times, but that is not to ignore them or refuse to acknowledge their anger or their emotions.
I dont think that emotions are a problem or that logic is the way to handle a discussion. Just because I have problems being aware of my emotions dont imply that they are not usefull or important. To me they are more important than logic in an argument.
Is my wife angry? We probably need to work out a limit or to change something that is hurting her. She may need some rest? She may need to vent? Have I done something that she understands as a lack of respect? Which is her un-attended need?
Has she some "irrational" fear? Lets hear that fear, lets see if we can do things differently so her fear feels attended? May we change the activity? May we introduce some extra safety?
Emotions serve a purpose. A person who have fear to walk in the nigth may not find usefull my cold logic but my acceptance and respect to their fears. Just an example.
I dont like the middle ground thing either. A bully may take my things and then the teacher comes and told me "Hey, we must share". No, thanks. My limits are mine, and I dont feel forced to blend them to accomodate any middle ground. I am not in a relation to be less that I would be alone. The middle ground thing sounds (to me) very much like : Lets cut our wings equally. I will cut your wings in exchange of letting you cut my wings so we can be equally disminished.
Listening to the other person helps me, its important to me to understand their needs or desires. Then I must listen to myself, what are my needs and desires. Learning lo listen and understand the other person from their truths has been difficult for me, to accept their emotions and needs even if they would be stupid emotions and needs from my truth. Not to juzge them. That has been difficult, but so helpfull. I took training for that.
Normalism is another problem for me. If my wife ask me something that to my context is normal (fix that electric appliance) I could think that its my duty to do so. In my normality men do those house repairs. If she ask me to wash the dishes, wich may be easier and faster, it may be against my normality context. And I must be also ready to see that some of my needs and desires are out of her "normality" context.
Society have many normality unwritten rules, we may consider them, but at the end, we need to build our own family normality from our own needs, fears, limits, illusions... And if those are not compatible, we may be also ready to stop the relation.
Its not a duty, relations are not a must, are not a chain to slave and be slaved. They may not work. That is something important. Som people destroy themselves to keep alive a toxic relation. Relations are about love.
Sorry for the wall of text.