Interesting article, but my general problem with these approaches is that they seem to look for one major "reason" evolution produced brains. Even for a less sophisticated internal organs, their functions are multiple (which is what makes medicine more complicated than we'd wish) and for something that's a Turing-complete piece of wetware there is no reason to think less.

The interesting question to me is "do people argue to win arguments?", followed by "which people", "how often", "under which circumstances"? The general jist of "brains evolved for arguing" does little to control my anticipation, though addmittedly it might have been a useful reflection/observation-directing hint to my earlier more naive self.