No, nowhere is the article stating that only one viewpoint is allowed.

For example, if there were several scientists that were debating more precise ways of calculating the circumference of Earth, the discourse would improve if flat Earth information was excluded.

It's not a debate, they used clear definitions.

> Are we saying that the conversation is less angry when everybody basically agrees?

  diversity attractive until polarized

Claims: Anger is firstly a masking emotion for the immature sadness that others' values are not the same as one's own. Anger is secondly an emotional manipulation strategy to enjoin others.