> Leaving that decision to you with a warning of its implications (ala Debian) is not really freedom because you'll make the wrong choice.
This is context dependent.
Suppose I'm changing an existing laptop from Windows 10 to Debian for a user. Suppose I must install WiFi to convince the user the machine it as all useful. Suppose if I fail to get the machine to work, the user will eventually go out and get another Windows 10 machine.
In this case the right choice is to install from nonfree. It's a compromise, sure, but it's clearly less bad than the alternatives and leads to significantly more freedom than the user had before.
To not leave room in your philosophy for these cases-- and there are many-- is to create unnecessary rifts among allies. You're doing it right now by implying that Debian proponents aren't True Scotsman due to the existence of nonfree.