[antisthenes]

> I recently read a frustrating thread on HN where it was obvious several people were making arguments against points that were already addressed in the article.

Ummm, yes? Isn't that the point of a discussion thread? Just because the article makes some points doesn't exempt them from criticism.

Many articles posted on HN are outright garbage - e.g. very poorly constructed studies or some undergrad psych/nutrition juju that doesn't pass a basic critical thinking test, so it's quite rightful that people don't waste their time reading them (or at least reading them completely)

> The discussion in the thread was cluttered with people attacking straw men instead of having any fruitful discourse.

Typically, people attacking straw men will do so regardless of whether they read the article. The problem with those people is that they invent the straw man, attack it, win, and do all those things without ever caring if it relates to the topic at hand at all.