It seems to have been heated!

[zoobinshid]

Hello everyone,
Would you please tell me the meaning of this sentence in the converation below?
(It seems to have been heated. )

A:We're having a really big battle inside our party at the moment.
B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been heated.

Thanks in advance,

[Umut HIZAR]

A:We're having a really big battle inside our party at the moment.
B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been heated.

B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been heated.
It was not a big quarrel but with the instigastion of the press it has become so.

[Tdol]

I'd read it as this:
The newspaper headlines suggested that the argument was fierce.

I see 'heated' as an adjective describing the argument, not as a part of a passive verb.

[Temico]

B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been heated.

I believe that there is a typo in the sentence. It should read either as,

a) B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have heated (up). ( become more fierce)
or
b) B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been pre-heated. ( instigated in advance/previously)

[Umut HIZAR]

I believe that there is a typo in the sentence. It should BE read either as,

b) B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been pre-heated. ( instigated in advance/previously)

Are u sure of the necessity of "pre-" prefix there?

[Temico]

Are u sure of the necessity of "pre-" prefix there?

From the context given by zoobinshid, I would say the reply of "speaker B" would be one of the following:-

i) B: Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been a heated one indeed! (confirming that "the argument was fierce")

ii) B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have heated (up). (become more fierce)

iii) B:Yes, I've seen the newspaper headlines. It seems to have been pre-heated. (instigated in advance/previously and only blew up now)

To simply say "It seems to have been heated", to me anyway, is pointless because if nothing was heated in the first place, there would be no battle in the party or anything to write about for that matter!

[Tdol]

I don't see that the sentence necessarily has a typowinn- the person is just confirming that the newspapers have given him or her the same impression. It may not be the most original or sparkling sentence in the world, but it perfectly correct and appropriate for the context. In conversation, we often make moves like this. The reply is what you have down as your first suggestion, but with a slightly different wording.

[Umut HIZAR]

There is no necessity for "pre" prefix; that is, the form that is used refers to an ongoing or not ongoing but still effective process.

[Temico]

There is no necessity for "pre" prefix

I still think that I am right. Read the following example:-

A: The tea is scalding!
B(i): It seems to have been heated. ( The reply is grammatically correct and to some, acceptable, no doubt about that, but is it appropriate? Can the tea be scalding if it is not heated?)

Now compare this reply instead:

B(ii): It seems to have been over-heated. ( prefix "over")

Which do you think would have been the more logical reply, B(i) or B(ii), may I ask?

Now compare it to the reply in the original question.

[Tdol]

It's not the same as the original reply.

The original dialogue has more to it than your conversation about the tea. In the original, the second speaker does two things. Firstly, they confirm that external sources have also said the same and then ventures their opinion based on what they have read and heard. The use of 'seems' their is hedging, a way of slightly distancing themselves from the events to which they were not a witness. This is a perfectly natural way for a conversation to go in English- we often hedge when we have no direct evidence. I see no need at all to think there is a typo there.

Also, Google returns zero finds for 'preheated argument'; it's scarcely a common collocation.