I ask motivated in particular by this question, but also by the general pattern seen so far.
That question was originally titled Should generators be their own type?, but was now renamed to What are the pros and cons of having a unique type for generators?, in line with a number of others on the site. I think the former was a strictly better title for the question! Yes, it's technically a yes-or-no question, but a one-word answer that provides no rationale will be a bad answer regardless. A good answer to that question will propose a solution and present the supporting case. It's a fine question, and answers will be informed by evidence.
On the other hand, the memetic "What are the pros and cons of ..." format seems to have taken off merely to avoid the appearance of being opinion based. What is invited is a series of grab-bag lists of unfiltered ideas instead, and it's hard to see how that's better except for ease of responding.
There are some cases where this can be an appropriate framing, but it's far from universal, and in the concrete case here I think it's outright worse than the original. If questions have been being closed constantly because they're posed in the form of seeking a recommendation and this is why they all now need to be phrased that way, I think we should just stop doing that.
A question asking about the implications of a concrete design choice should be able to get genuine expert analysis, instead of being forced into a box of mixed-value top-of-head reckons to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Good quality answers, even if contrary, can be voted up, and unsubstantiated ranting downvoted; that's the whole point.