Of course there can be opinionated views (are there any other kind?) but they can be expressed without triggering merely emotional responses. That is, you may get an emotional response but it is based on the content of the view expressed, not merely on its mode of expression. I have actually seen abortion discussions between deeply committed people on both sides that vigorously laid out the positions and the supporting information without once using "baby-killer" or "womb Nazi" or, indeed, any other charged words, finding even mutually acceptable words for the being in utero. You have to look hard for them but they are out there. And, of course, much of it was still based on prejudice (mainly shown in cherry-picking the available information) and on various sorts of self interest. But the point is that it was carried on in a non-arousing way. You might be swayed, even aroused, by the arguments but again this was reaction to content, not wording. And indeed, there were use of strong disapprobation (and approbation, for that matter) on each side, but these value judgments based on principles an data, not merely soul-stirring battle cries.
tp is lousy at nuance (hell, it's lousy at oldance or whatever the opposite is), but it can build up what it needs from the material at hand: mute & lili, pakala (and no opposite), and so on. But they don't have to be blindly enraging or seducing.