Don't you get pretty irritated when people do this? Don't you think just rephrasing an argument as a question is a pretty poor way of making your point? See what I did there?
Questioning, or leastwise buffering with caveats, indicates one's own limits are recognised, which I find a positive trait as it shows an open mind.
Also if I question something instead of stating it, it invites kinder answers from experts, and I feel less of a fool when said expert demonstrates I'm wrong.
Because you expected exactly those responses, it's easy to not get emotionally invested and it's a much more likely way to learn something.
Adding caveats and exceptions directly in the post usually just obfuscates your point and makes it harder for people to understand you. Sure, in a formal publication absolutely recognise the limitations of your argument. But when having an internet discussion, the time for elaborating and explaining limitations is either in an appendix or a follow-up post.
This doesn't apply to exceptions which are material to the main point you're trying to make though. Just things which, if asked "Give me the bottom line," you'd omit.
Shrug. Works for me.
> it's better to baldly assert something as confidently as possible
Oh Noooo! That misleads people who don't know better and pisses off experts who do, and makes you look stupid when you're told you're wrong - which in my case I don't mind but for some people public embarrassment will cause them to double down, driving them into a corner, igniting long chain posts based on ill feelings, and wasting everyone's time. Happened between me and another just 7 days ago - check my postings.
I know the bit about the best way to get a right answer online is to post a wrong one, but I don't find that so, in fact the opposite. Maybe it works best in toxic communities?
> Adding caveats and exceptions directly in the post usually just obfuscates your point
Simple rewrite rule is simple:
X does Y! -> does X do Y?
No responses, as there's nothing particularly objectionable to bait people into replying. The simple fact is, online people will almost always only respond when they disagree.
For the purpose of actually getting people to engage in a discussion or when you want to learn something, I stand by the approach I said. I didn't say you had to be argumentative or negative when you do it.