[ethbro]

So you decline to provide evidence that the article positively

> state[s] that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even valid) form of policy debate

We both agree that the article goes on at length about the recklessness of fact-based arguments on HN.

Furthermore, I point to two direct quotes that I characterize as anti-fact and elevating non-factual or (debatably in the case of the latter) semi-factual methods of discussion to the same level as fact-based discussion.

You decline to provide evidence rebutting those two points, and instead cite the "emphasis" of the surrounding paragraph as a reason those two points should be ignored.

Does that accurately describe your position?