He said "it's more important to avoid degenerate discussion here".

He means discussions that degenerate into flamewars.

For what it's worth, misquoting or misrepresenting someone else's comments is another cause of degenerate discussions.

I merely raise the point that fasting should be considered where relevant to the discussion. In each and every health related discussion I joined there is significant evidence that fasting is indeed a viable treatment option.

The flamewars you are speaking of are not started by myself, rather by a select few who have opposing beliefs and are using the site features (flagging, downvoting) to express such views.

As you mentioned, I've been speaking up about fasting for a long time on HN. I have since received several emails from members here who have taken my comments into consideration and have been successful at resolving various health issues in large part by undertaking a prolonged fast.

Banning me plays into the hands of those who would rather this treatment option be silenced and I believe the Flagging feature is being abused by those who are using it anonymously to prevent others from being exposed to it.

By banning me you are effectively hindering people's access to a wide variety of health options, and I believe you will be in the wrong by doing so. Therefore I would like to have my comments and activity reviewed by other moderators as well, since currently as things stand I think banning me will be a personal decision on your part that is not in line with the Guidelines that you have published and asked your users to adhere by. Who can I contact to further discuss this?

But we're all responsible for phrasing our comments in a way that doesn't trigger flamewars.

The guidelines clearly state: "Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say."

The same thing can be said in multiple different ways. You should make an effort to phrase your comments in the non-flamewar-triggering way.