I agree to some point.
Reinstall the whole system is a bad answer. Probably one of the worst you can find, specially when it comes with no background research.
To be fair, as don.joey said, it was posted in a comment. I told "unplug the power cord for 5 minutes" recently (and felt like working in a call center), but again it was a suggestion in a comment instead a solution in an answer.
Reinstall package X is a bad solution and it does not dive into the problem. When there is some research and the conclusion is just reinstall package, I got a weird feeling when it works, because it makes me feel like I didn't found the real source of the problem, and applied just a workaround.
There can be some exceptions, like missing libraries that got accidentally uninstalled or file collision.
Reconfigure (reset to default conf) package X makes more sense when there is a configuration problem, things just don't work, or you want to get to a (hopefully) known state. But again, it should be only part of the answer if you need a clean environment to build the actual answer.
Nevertheless, let's suppose there is a known problem / bug in Ubuntu (and maybe in Debian too) that it is not present in other distributions (it could be related with packaging, unmet compile-flags dependencies, or with kernel module and userland package version mismatch, let your imagination decide)...
TL;DR: Should an answer like remove Ubuntu and install Slackware be flagged, downvoted and maybe censored just because the answer (not the question) looks ugly, off-topic or Ubuntu-discouraging?
In such scenario, (assuming the new system can met the old requirements and tasks) the migration would solve the problem so it would be a viable answer, and probably the poster would be really happy if it works (Slackware is an overwhelming example for newcomers, but CentOS or OpenSUSE might not be so hard).
