I noticed that this question was marked as a "controversial post." The text says:
Controversial Post — You may use comments ONLY to suggest improvements. You may use answers ONLY to provide a solution to the specific question asked above. Moderators will remove debates, arguments or opinions without notice.
I find this concept morally dubious.
To illustrate, here's a statement made in an answer that is EXTREMELY opinion-laden:
So, rather than trying to plead for another chance, rather than trying to "see what can be done," the solution is to recognize that you have made a serious error that cannot be rectified.
I strongly disagree with this highly controversial statement, and I note that it hasn't been "removed without notice," most likely because it fits with the politics or meta-philosophies of certain moderators.
Further to this, I imagine, there were equally controversial statements that were removed simply because they didn't fit with such meta-philosophies. If that's not the case for this particular question, then at least it's probably the case for other questions so-marked as controversial.
My point is this: the controversial post mechanism, which by its nature does not require the consistent removal of controversial or opinion-laden statements, but only gives moderators the option of removal, consequently confers inordinate power to moderators and allows them to impose their political views and personal opinions upon others to a much greater extent than can be considered necessary or morally sound.
Interfering with people's freedom of speech is already problematic from an ethical point of view, but when this interference is at the discretion of authorities and policing is inconsistent, it becomes orders of magnitude more problematic. For these reasons and others, I oppose the use of "controversial question" mechanism and I think that academia.stackexchange should search for more ethically sound ways of reducing interpersonal conflict.