In a recent edition of a magazine I receive there was this statement form the Editor:

...But our arguments need to be debates, not merely the issue of ultimatums which force people into two camps.  And they should not be personal...

... But where is the forum where these debates can take place?  It's right here - The <Magazine Name>.  Neither its editor nor its publisher (<Publisher's name>) is afraid of controversy, providing it is not destructive, mischievous or doctrinally unsound."

Now, I echo the cry that debates should not get personal, nor should they be destructive or mischievous.  But how do you define doctrinally unsound without squashing responsible and necessary debate.  An example is in order here:

My particular religion has a doctrine that says "it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Early in our history Samuel Logan Brengle taught one understanding of just what this meant.  Later on, General Coutts taught a different understanding.  Now debate on this doctrine is bound to produce arguments (oops, debate) from both sides, and maybe from a third point of view that incorporates both teaching.  My point is that, depending on which point of view you come from, the other side is doctrinally unsound!

So...  who decides?