I think that it is essential that the Administrators do all that they can to create an environment where all can present their best argument in support of their position.
For some positions, this is fairly easy, there is an overwhelming body of evidence available or reason and logic and reality. Other positions are based primarily on emotion, myth and superstition.
I think that the Administrators need to consider the basic supportability of a position, and when it is an emotional or superstition position, the Administrators should allow greater leeway from posters allowing them the freedom to use personal attacks on others, allowing the supporters of those positions to label those they are responding to as morons or freaks, even threatening others with physical harm or being shot.
This does not mean that other people involved in the debate should not be allowed to challenge such positions, but that the challengers from the position of reason, evidence, logic and reality should be restricted in their challenge from using personal attack and required to address the argument not the individual.
Those trying to support the emotional, illogical, irrational positions should be allowed the only tools they have available, personal attack, misrepresentation, misdirection and goal shifting.