There is a difference in discourse between the passions of argument and screaming for someone to "kill yourself". There is no discourse in arguing that your opponent should be murdered. It is, in fact, the appeal to ending an argument; not in exposing the truth in an argument. The argument is an explicit argument from violence, which is (by definition) an argument from power. There is no discourse in an argument from power, this is the basis of the Melian Dialogue. No debate can be had, no argument can be made, no counter-argument can defeat it. It is a demonstration of imminence in violence, meant to end the argument and intimidate the opposite side.

It's old now-a-days, but I remember the championship debate team arguing that white people should kill themselves under the topic of "should the US adopt a renewable energy strategy". They won the debate, because it's not a debate. It is, in fact, an appeal to power. It is "might makes right" which is neither a defeatable, nor debatable, nor falsifiable argument.

So no, Rule 2 stays, because an argument to violence is not anti-passivity; it's an argument to power to end the conversation and engage in violence.