Depends on the scale of the problem.

If you're six chapters down a hole because the plot took a drastically wrong direction, trying to push on rather than going back and fixing it can be a very bad idea. I tend to fix major things as soon as I find them, even if that means going back, and leave little things for later passes.

But then - it does appear that every writer gets a different set of things easily or for free - some are naturally great at character and have to work hard on plot, some the other way around and so on - and what I appear to have got more easily than many is the abiility to sit down and produce a few thousand words every week, come rain, snow, hail, of hyperactive sixteen-month-old.  If actually finsihing things is a problem for you, my example may not be a sensible one to follow.

Also, I wouldn't fret too much over how the meaning of names is going to impact the reader.

The problem with that is illustrated by such books as Diane Duane's Tale of the Fire series, in which a major character's name, an innocuous foreign-sounding monosyllable in English, turned out entirely accidentally to be an extremely rude word in Norwegian (I think it was).

I spend pretty much the entirety of every working day sitting in front of a monitor, so I write on my laptop lying down in bed. It seems to work OK.

I'm in the middle of a big brawl right now where the main char is fighting a big group of people, and so far i'm just doing my best to write what happens.  But it's hard to write with much style when you're describing each move.  So it's like 80% a breakdown of the fight with about 20% storytelling and voice. 

Whose point of view is it ?

In main character POV, if the main character's good enough not to need to think about what they're actually doing in detail, stick with what they're thinking, and the results of the fight, with the description of what happens when background and only the bits that don't work, or work suprisingly well, really catching their attention.
 
[ If they're not that good, against a bunch of people, it's either going to be a short fight, or they need some trick advantage which you can foreground in their thoughts instead. Like Indiana Jones shooting the showy swordsman in Raiders. ]

If it's somebody else's POV, you have a pile of options, "Wow, look at that !", or "oh dear, it's going to be me next unless I'm careful", or "how did I get into this mess ?", or "Yeah, right, another boring Protagonist fighting insuperable odds, get it over with already, do I want pizza or Thai for dinner tonight... " would all fit plausible other character reactions there at least as well as  a technical breakdown of your main character's style.

What's the point of the fight ? What consequences has it for people you want the reader to care about, and for the plot ?  Communicate those, and the rest is secondary.

Currently, the novel that I'm working on the most is at 23,405 after three days. I'm hoping that the storyline will be engaging enough for me to go for at least ten times that.

What are you writing that with ?

That wordcount in that many days is a) impressive and b) would make me worry slightly about possible RSI-like issues.

I've typed 10,500 words in a day, and it was a bad plan even though I spent a couple of hours not writing in the middle.  [ Seeing possibly the worst piece of theatre I ever saw in my life, which could well be part of why so creative. ]

Difference between discussion and debate really seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and I'd prefer not to have lines laid down that curtailed the civilised expression of differences of opinion when they arose naturally out of conversation. The vast majority of what I've seen since joining in the conversation here as struck me as eminently civilised, and I would worry somewhat that being self-conscious about an additional distinction might make it hard to have conversations flow as naturally and appealingly as they often do.

I wonder whether part of the problem might not be something I've seen recur in other online fora in different places, which is people from different areas or brought up in different cultures within the English-speaking world having distinctly different basic notions of what is and is not civil conversation, or hearing things with subtext differently from what was meant in them - I've personally lived in five different countries for significant lengths of time as an adult, and had a number of such issues come up, for example "If you say so", which seems to read very dismissively some places in NorAm, whereas in my home part of Ireland it's a neutral or mildly complimentary way of acknowledging that somebody probably knows better and you don't have the information to judge.

I have withdrawn from a couple of threads recently where continued argument appeared to be generating more heat than light.  As a suggestion for how to counter this, what would people think of the notion that, when a book-related discussion appears to be getting heated, the participants be requested to [ or ideally undertake of their own responsibility ] construct whatever position they are suggesting in a more formal manner, identifying what of their particular argument is actually stated in the text of the books in so many words, and what is a deduction from there and by what logic ?  I suggest this because a number of the more heated threads recently appear to hinge on people having different perceptions on what can be regarded as "fact" within the Dresdenverse.

Hence why Superman has never been a good protagonist in my mind.  He's just too powerful and the only thing that can bring him down is kryptonite.

Superman's weakness is his moral rectitude. Convince him that not doing what you want endangers innocent lives and he'll do what you tell him.