There are those who argue that intellectual argumentation should be objective and, in that regard, value-free. I personally disagree but I recognize that my "opponents" have a point. Or do they?
Value-free is only possible when all contextual circumstances are enumerated before hand... yes? If not, whenever there is a context that begs for an action or reaction from a person or a group of people, the good or the bad or the in-between is decisively determinable if we grant all parties affected equal accountability. Yes?