pb: Agreed: there's a fine line between evangelism and narrow-mindedness.
Debian, after all, does not "recommend non-free software", as Alfred
asserts: a default Debian install includes nothing that is considered
non-free by the Debian Free Software Guidelines, with the exception of
a few kernel drivers without which common hardware will not work. (Not
to mention the fact that according to the DFSG much GNU documentation
is non-free.) Ubuntu do pretty much the same as Debian, and (with the
exception again of kernel drivers) go out of their way to point out to
users when they are installing non-free software (for example,
graphics drivers for X, and their separate "partner repository").
pb: Mature conduct requires one to accept first, that there may be genuine
differences of opinion over what constitutes "freedom", as witness the
distinct definitions arrived at by the FSF and the Debian maintainers
(the former by dictatorial fiat; the latter, by democratic consensus),
and secondly, that people who are essentially on the same side may
disagree about the relative importance of different factors: for the
GNU project, freedom (according to their definition) is of overriding
importance; Debian take a slightly more pragmatic view in their
limited kernel exceptions from the DFSG; whereas Ubuntu aims
unashamedly at getting the largest possible number of users, arguing
that it's better to get people the practical benefits of free software
via an "impure" approach, and that more people will end up learning
about and supporting free software as a result.