Undermined of confidence

There are four characteristics that I sensed yesterday while talking (rather put forth my arguments) to a senior official of my lab. They are the following

1. Obstinacy to the extent of lying - Evident by statements like "there is a problem with you...".
2. Intellectually deprived arguments - evident by statements like "Don't argue"
3. Arbitrariness in decisions - evident by statements like "It looks good..". It is fairly well known that such concepts are relative do not make sense. Does convenience forms a part of goodness? Hence "looks good" is a very weak argument forced only by his rank and seniority.
4. Discrediting - Evident by the statements like "Jlee was seated here and he told see ( search for euphemism ) how someone is arguing...". I am scientist as well as class 1 gazetted rank officer and hence a man of intelligence (at least some!) and integrity. He did not care for these and was too eager to call up my seniors. Essentially he did call up.

These four characteristics of his arguments/lambasting certainly have had a undermining effect on my confidence. Yesterday it did really unearthed me.

The whole argument was set up in the context that even after four years of service to the organization I have to defend the respect that I expect at least from the sentries standing on the gates. Given the fact that my means to defend my cause is highly crippled because "don't argue". I think the most pertinent question for me is why shouldn't I argue and if I feel my arguments are correct why shouldn't I go ahead with it. Our whole justice system is based on arguments. Arguments has been the Indian tradition "the book argumentative Indian by Amartya sen". Arguments forms a important part of our civilization. They are the pillars on which we infer and grow. I have great respect for arguments as long as they are arguments (pure logic).

I am certain that I am completely robbed of my mental peace since yesterday.