Method

This site has a position. It also tells you exactly where that position is weakest — which is more than you will get from most of the people arguing with you.

The rules

• Journal articles only. No think-tank reports, no advocacy summaries, no newspapers. If a claim cannot be traced to peer-reviewed research, it does not appear.
• Every piece of evidence states its own weaknesses. This is enforced by the software: a study card without a stated limitation will not build.
• Every module declares where it is weakest before it can be published. Those declarations are collected at Contested claims.
• Opposing sources are cited by name. The papers that argue against this site's position appear in the bibliography, marked as such.
• The strongest version of the other side gets stated first, before any reply. A page that only beats weak arguments is useless the first time it meets a strong one.
• No mockery. No screenshotting people. No dunking. Someone humiliated into silence has not been persuaded of anything.

Why "hidden premise"

Arguments have steps, and most everyday arguments leave steps out, because saying every step aloud would be tedious. When an argument is wrong, the broken step is almost always one of the missing ones. Nobody said it. Nobody defended it. So nobody noticed it was broken.

The work of this site is finding those steps and putting them on the table.

Bias

Yes. Modules on contested topics argue for a position, and it will usually be the liberal one — in the classical sense: freedom is the default, and restricting someone's life requires pointing to a harm.

The response to that is not a claim of neutrality, which would be false. It is this page, where the site's own weak points are collected and kept public.

Licence. CC BY-SA 4.0. Quote it, fork it, translate it.