As the South Carolina primary gets closer and closer, voters are bracing themselves for a wave of negative ads. The campaign trail in that state is known for being a blood bath—a last stand as Republican hopefuls try to cling to their candidacy. And for many, that means going negative on their opponents.

But as much as negative campaigning gets a bad rap, I’d like to argue that going negative might actually be a positive.

Sure, the ads lose the warm, fuzzy feelings they had at the beginning of the campaigns. But they can actually be a great way for candidates to provide information about where they stand on the issues. Most importantly, it allows candidates to offer a direct contrast between themselves and their opponents.

You can tell a lot about a candidate by the shape of their negative ads. What issues they choose to focus on can tell you which voters they’re trying to reach. Which opponent they target can tell you who they see as their greatest threat, whether that’s another Republican candidate or whether they’re going straight for President Obama.

Negative ads may be prone to exaggeration and distortion, but you have to admit they grab our attention and get us asking questions.

So, what do you think? Are negative ads part of a healthy democracy or an unnecessary distraction? Where do you draw the line?