[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people, especially politically-correct types, might try to make you think the two actions are equivalent, but they aren't. Genuine debate on any topic cannot be rationally construed as an "insult".

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Genuine debate is almost always insulting; so long as we take 'insulting' to mean something synonymous to 'hurtful', then good, genuine debate often ought to be insulting - so long as we admit objective truth exists, someone will invariably be hurt that something they genuinely believe to be true isn't necessarily so.

Perhaps you have a different definition of insulted - but I think so long as we establish that someone can be 'insulted' any time they are confronted with language or ideas 'meant to hurt', then I see legitimate debate as often insulting, and appropriately so.

Imagine Poster XYZ argues (I don't agree, but it's a legitimate argument to have) that Islam breeds terrorism. I can imagine many Muslims would be insulted by this - but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate debate, nor does it mean it should be moderated because someone was insulted by it.

In other words, the truth is often hurtful and insulting to parties who would rather deny it; and I don't think moderators are qualified to sort out what qualifies as truth and what doesn't - nor should they, even if they were capable! Taken to its conclusion, I'm quite happy to allow all sorts of hurtful, insulting debate even if it's untrue because of the benefits which emerge from it; those benefits being a community that leaves no stone unturned in it's search for a higher level of discourse and understanding. And as contradictory as it may sound, sometimes a higher level of discourse means some feelings get hurt, some people are insulted, and some toes get stepped on along the way.