This is a vague question as stated, and I'm afraid I can only narrow it down by throwing together what I think are related ideas: that there may be a differential use of "f*** you" in a particular conversation against someone in one of a couple cases. There are, first, clearly invalid uses, such as attempts to silence an opponent or just in the manner of standard ad hominem attacks, but then there's other cases where I might be tempted to think an f-bomb both appropriate and justified, such as
- Expressing serious offense at a statement; a speech-act, rather than an argument
Declaring the statement previously used as out-of-bounds or outrageous within the context of the given discussion (whether correctly or not).
a. Outrageous in a sense that you need to forcefully convey that the previous statement would set your opponent outside of the acceptable discourse (claiming, for instance, that phrenology is a valid reason to infer racial superiority), or
b. Outrageous in a sense that you wish to recognize (or allow) that the previous statement was intended to be sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek, to convey the opposite point.
Now I've no reservations that it's unethical to use pejoratives and expletives to denounce an opponent to her or his face, for no reason than to demean or silence them. Yet some people, from personal experience, appear to regard the use of expletives as an act akin to violence. This make the question ethically relevant: if it can be argued that pejorative expletives are useful in cases like (1) or (2) above, then is it more important to respect the potential sensibilities of your opponent (assuming they're unknown) and how they might take a statement, or is it more important to regard conversations as holding in good faith only if they allow any free communication which may be useful to an argument?
** If I haven't been clear, here's a short and excellent summation of all the valid uses I have in mind (nsfw).