I don't think the main criteria for foul speak should be whether anyone is offended by it, as indeed it's difficult to say something that wouldn't offend at least one out of 6 billion people.
The criteria should be whether it really has to be said that way to describe it appropriately, and whether it damages the future development of the language and thus, the society that depends on it.
The reason for the tendency to use exaggerated language is laziness and inflation of superlatives. When a 2:0 is described as destruction, it seems like you have to resort to something much stronger even for a 3:0. The reality, however, is that with communication as intense and wide-spreading as it is today, no expression is strong enough not to feel 'amortized' after being employed for a couple of months' as a fashionable term to describe flamboyantly what are actually rather mundane matters.
So the real problem in my opinion is not the single use of aggressive superlatives, but repeating them over and over. The first time someone uses the expression figuratively,it has a strong effect and everyone is capable of making the distinction with the actual meaning. But then it gets picked up by everyone and the constant repetition blurs the lines and leaves the language and people's minds confused.