Generalizations are a lot more fun. One can call others names and make no exceptions. Where's the fun in being all nice and warm inside. You guys make me sick.

If this is true, it is not the remedy for a problem that is the result of inadequate moderation by the authors of the debates wherein we participate.

Solution:

Moderators, as responsible authors, can either A: start moderating their debates and banning the abusers therefrom, or B: lose the authorization to create debates. And thusly the enforcement of these measures shall create a debating atmosphere that is intolerant of abusive argument which is abusive for the sake of being abusive.

Furthermore, let’s not abandon the advancement of the pursuit of greater intelligence because of quasi problems with quasi solutions for the sake of quasi intelligence. And let it be known any attempt to now negate ‘hasty generalizations’ because of an uncomfortable ‘hasty generalization’ (and it is about sentiment towards certain generalizations) will lead to the slippery slope of more negations of other categories of generalizations. All of which concluding with the last generalization: There is truth!

Do we not think some truths are offensive?

But whatever is decided, take heed:

Don’t ban generalizations; ban moderators who derive some sense of pleasure from the un-restrained intellectual sadists who get their rocks off by practicing intellectual sadism. For if it is decided to ban one category of generalization, that decision sanctions intellectual sadism in all other generalizations.

(We can’t ban stupidity, but intellectual abusiveness must be moderated.)

The problem with this statement is that many (or most, or all if you want to go that far) religions make explicit statements which go against common scientific knowledge. If forgoing objective proof in the name of faith isn't the clearest sign of being "scientifically challenged", the term loses it's meaning entirely.