I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, since I'm not a full scale pilot.

My grandfather used to teach aerobatics, and ultimately accumulated over 8000 hours of general aviation time, most of it doing instruction. I can tell you very much first hand that this "argument" does exist in the real world. I witnessed it many, many times growing up. It's probably not so prevalent today because the "rudder crowd" is mostly "old school" pilots. Emphasis on the ailerons has been pretty prevalent in full scale instruction since the 50's or so.

My dad (35000 hours, most of it in airliners) also mentions that many pilots taught in the last 20 or 30 years under use the rudder. He doesn't argue about it, though (as opposed to my grandfather, who's a rudder activist.)

I really don't want to argue either, and I especially don't want to make a claim that somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. I just jumped in to reply because it is most definitely not always dangerous to use the rudder as the primary control for turning a plane. There have been a number of folks jumping in with examples of full scale aircraft which do not fly properly unless rudder is used in this way. There are certainly other examples (jet fighters come to mind) where they are designed to fly well using ailerons as primary control. I own some R/C planes that like heavy use of ailerons in turns (as well as one with no rudder at all). I would say that the best thing to do is "fly the plane you are in."

-Wade