3 added 3 characters in body
source | link

I totally agree with the existing answers, but here's yet another attempt to understand the point. I'm trying to decompose the nature of StackExchange one step at a time to explain my vision.


  1. We are here to learn.
  2. Sometimes learning means changing your opinion. So, it is fine to be wrong about anything within our questions. And we expect to find truth in the answers.
    • Note however that sometimes, questions like „Why X?“ may receive answers like
      „X is untrue, Y is true, here are proofs and explanation“.
  3. Hence, the questions should be answerable. An un-answerable question does not let us learn — see (1).
  4. To make question answerable (3), it must be understandable.
  5. People may perceive (the same) information in different ways. Misunderstood questions (4) invite for useless answers. Here at Politics.SE it ends up with answers without answering, or denying the original premises, or simply proclaiming political slogans.
  6. Understandable questions (4) must provide with some clearly-defined context.
  7. Often, the context (6) can't be retrieved from the question itself. However, linked articles may provide with it.

Using this logic, we can easily tell good/bad questions. Say, your question is:

Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?

Let's think that the OP genuinely wants to know why (and does not declare political slogans).

Here, it does not matter whether or not the deal itself good or bad (see (2) in the list above). The only thing that matters — and what the OP is asking about — is finding rationale behind why "some politicians" think/say so.

But if there are no links, we don't know who are these politicians, at what circumstances they said so, therefore we're unable to explain their point! The question becomes unanswerable.

Imagine the OP provided several links where a politician John Smith criticscriticizes the Iranian deal. We may figure out that John Smith is affiliated with, for instance, Israel who historically finds any economical growth of Iran a strategical threat to Israel. This would be a correct answer to why John Smith opposes Iranian deal.

Again, this would not answer whether the deal itself is good or bad. But the question becomes (see the list above) to: (6) have context → hence (4) understandable → hence (3) answerable → hence (1) able to teach us something.

This way we composed it back to our mission.

I totally agree with the existing answers, but here's yet another attempt to understand the point. I'm trying to decompose the nature of StackExchange one step at a time to explain my vision.


  1. We are here to learn.
  2. Sometimes learning means changing your opinion. So, it is fine to be wrong about anything within our questions. And we expect to find truth in the answers.
    • Note however that sometimes, questions like „Why X?“ may receive answers like
      „X is untrue, Y is true, here are proofs and explanation“.
  3. Hence, the questions should be answerable. An un-answerable question does not let us learn — see (1).
  4. To make question answerable (3), it must be understandable.
  5. People may perceive (the same) information in different ways. Misunderstood questions (4) invite for useless answers. Here at Politics.SE it ends up with answers without answering, or denying the original premises, or simply proclaiming political slogans.
  6. Understandable questions (4) must provide with some clearly-defined context.
  7. Often, the context (6) can't be retrieved from the question itself. However, linked articles may provide with it.

Using this logic, we can easily tell good/bad questions. Say, your question is:

Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?

Let's think that the OP genuinely wants to know why (and does not declare political slogans).

Here, it does not matter whether or not the deal itself good or bad (see (2) in the list above). The only thing that matters — and what the OP is asking about — is finding rationale behind why "some politicians" think/say so.

But if there are no links, we don't know who are these politicians, at what circumstances they said so, therefore we're unable to explain their point! The question becomes unanswerable.

Imagine the OP provided several links where a politician John Smith critics the Iranian deal. We may figure out that John Smith is affiliated with, for instance, Israel who historically finds any economical growth of Iran a strategical threat to Israel. This would be a correct answer to why John Smith opposes Iranian deal.

Again, this would not answer whether the deal itself is good or bad. But the question becomes (see the list above) to: (6) have context → hence (4) understandable → hence (3) answerable → hence (1) able to teach us something.

This way we composed it back to our mission.

I totally agree with the existing answers, but here's yet another attempt to understand the point. I'm trying to decompose the nature of StackExchange one step at a time to explain my vision.


  1. We are here to learn.
  2. Sometimes learning means changing your opinion. So, it is fine to be wrong about anything within our questions. And we expect to find truth in the answers.
    • Note however that sometimes, questions like „Why X?“ may receive answers like
      „X is untrue, Y is true, here are proofs and explanation“.
  3. Hence, the questions should be answerable. An un-answerable question does not let us learn — see (1).
  4. To make question answerable (3), it must be understandable.
  5. People may perceive (the same) information in different ways. Misunderstood questions (4) invite for useless answers. Here at Politics.SE it ends up with answers without answering, or denying the original premises, or simply proclaiming political slogans.
  6. Understandable questions (4) must provide with some clearly-defined context.
  7. Often, the context (6) can't be retrieved from the question itself. However, linked articles may provide with it.

Using this logic, we can easily tell good/bad questions. Say, your question is:

Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?

Let's think that the OP genuinely wants to know why (and does not declare political slogans).

Here, it does not matter whether or not the deal itself good or bad (see (2) in the list above). The only thing that matters — and what the OP is asking about — is finding rationale behind why "some politicians" think/say so.

But if there are no links, we don't know who are these politicians, at what circumstances they said so, therefore we're unable to explain their point! The question becomes unanswerable.

Imagine the OP provided several links where a politician John Smith criticizes the Iranian deal. We may figure out that John Smith is affiliated with, for instance, Israel who historically finds any economical growth of Iran a strategical threat to Israel. This would be a correct answer to why John Smith opposes Iranian deal.

Again, this would not answer whether the deal itself is good or bad. But the question becomes (see the list above) to: (6) have context → hence (4) understandable → hence (3) answerable → hence (1) able to teach us something.

This way we composed it back to our mission.

2 fixed wording
source | link

I totally agree with the existing answers, but here's yet another attempt to understand the point. I'm trying to decompose the nature of StackExchange one step at a time to explain my vision.


  1. We are here to learn.
  2. Sometimes learning means changing your opinion. So, it is fine to be wrong about anything within our questions. And we expect to find truth in the answers.
    • Note however that sometimes, questions like „Why X?“ may receive answers like
      „X is untrue, Y is true, here are proofs and explanation“.
  3. Hence, the questions should be answerable. An un-answerable question does not let us learn — see (1).
  4. To make question answerable (3), it must be understandable.
  5. People may perceive (samethe same) information in different ways. Misunderstood questions (4) lead toinvite for useless answers. Here at Politics.SE it ends up with answers without answering, or denying the original premises, or simply proclaiming political slogans.
  6. Understandable questions (4) must provide with some clearly-defined context.
  7. Often, the context (6) can't be retrieved from the question itself. However, linked articles may provide with it.

Using this logic, we can easily tell good/bad questions. Say, your question is:

Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?

Let's think that the OP genuinely wants to know why (and does not declare political slogans).

Here, it does not matter whether or not the deal itself good or bad (see (2) in the list above). The only thing that matters — and what the OP is asking about — is finding rationale behind why "some politicians" think/say so.

But if there are no links, we don't know who are these politicians, at what circumstances they said so, therefore we're unable to explain their point! The question becomes unanswerable.

Imagine the OP provided several links where a politician John Smith critics the Iranian deal. We may figure out that John Smith is affiliated with, for instance, Israel who historically finds any economical growth of Iran a strategical threat to Israel. This would be a correct answer to why John Smith opposes Iranian deal.

Again, this would not answer whether the deal itself is good or bad. But the question becomes (see the list above) to: (6) have context → hence (4) understandable → hence (3) answerable → hence (1) able to teach us something.

This way we composed it back to our mission.

I totally agree with the existing answers, but here's yet another attempt to understand the point. I'm trying to decompose the nature of StackExchange one step at a time to explain my vision.


  1. We are here to learn.
  2. Sometimes learning means changing your opinion. So, it is fine to be wrong about anything.
  3. Hence, the questions should be answerable. An un-answerable question does not let us learn — see (1).
  4. To make question answerable (3), it must be understandable.
  5. People may perceive (same) information in different ways. Misunderstood questions (4) lead to useless answers. Here at Politics.SE it ends up with answers without answering, or denying the original premises, or simply political slogans.
  6. Understandable questions (4) must provide with some clearly-defined context.
  7. Often, the context (6) can't be retrieved from the question itself. However, linked articles may provide with it.

Using this logic, we can easily tell good/bad questions. Say, your question is:

Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?

Let's think that the OP genuinely wants to know why (and does not declare political slogans).

Here, it does not matter whether or not the deal itself good or bad (see (2) in the list above). The only thing that matters — and what the OP is asking about — is finding rationale behind why "some politicians" think/say so.

But if there are no links, we don't know who are these politicians, at what circumstances they said so, therefore we're unable to explain their point! The question becomes unanswerable.

Imagine the OP provided several links where a politician John Smith critics the Iranian deal. We may figure out that John Smith is affiliated with, for instance, Israel who historically finds any economical growth of Iran a strategical threat to Israel. This would be a correct answer to why John Smith opposes Iranian deal.

Again, this would not answer whether the deal itself is good or bad. But the question becomes (see the list above) to: (6) have context → hence (4) understandable → hence (3) answerable → hence (1) able to teach us something.

This way we composed it back to our mission.

I totally agree with the existing answers, but here's yet another attempt to understand the point. I'm trying to decompose the nature of StackExchange one step at a time to explain my vision.


  1. We are here to learn.
  2. Sometimes learning means changing your opinion. So, it is fine to be wrong about anything within our questions. And we expect to find truth in the answers.
    • Note however that sometimes, questions like „Why X?“ may receive answers like
      „X is untrue, Y is true, here are proofs and explanation“.
  3. Hence, the questions should be answerable. An un-answerable question does not let us learn — see (1).
  4. To make question answerable (3), it must be understandable.
  5. People may perceive (the same) information in different ways. Misunderstood questions (4) invite for useless answers. Here at Politics.SE it ends up with answers without answering, or denying the original premises, or simply proclaiming political slogans.
  6. Understandable questions (4) must provide with some clearly-defined context.
  7. Often, the context (6) can't be retrieved from the question itself. However, linked articles may provide with it.

Using this logic, we can easily tell good/bad questions. Say, your question is:

Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?

Let's think that the OP genuinely wants to know why (and does not declare political slogans).

Here, it does not matter whether or not the deal itself good or bad (see (2) in the list above). The only thing that matters — and what the OP is asking about — is finding rationale behind why "some politicians" think/say so.

But if there are no links, we don't know who are these politicians, at what circumstances they said so, therefore we're unable to explain their point! The question becomes unanswerable.

Imagine the OP provided several links where a politician John Smith critics the Iranian deal. We may figure out that John Smith is affiliated with, for instance, Israel who historically finds any economical growth of Iran a strategical threat to Israel. This would be a correct answer to why John Smith opposes Iranian deal.

Again, this would not answer whether the deal itself is good or bad. But the question becomes (see the list above) to: (6) have context → hence (4) understandable → hence (3) answerable → hence (1) able to teach us something.

This way we composed it back to our mission.

1
source | link

I totally agree with the existing answers, but here's yet another attempt to understand the point. I'm trying to decompose the nature of StackExchange one step at a time to explain my vision.


  1. We are here to learn.
  2. Sometimes learning means changing your opinion. So, it is fine to be wrong about anything.
  3. Hence, the questions should be answerable. An un-answerable question does not let us learn — see (1).
  4. To make question answerable (3), it must be understandable.
  5. People may perceive (same) information in different ways. Misunderstood questions (4) lead to useless answers. Here at Politics.SE it ends up with answers without answering, or denying the original premises, or simply political slogans.
  6. Understandable questions (4) must provide with some clearly-defined context.
  7. Often, the context (6) can't be retrieved from the question itself. However, linked articles may provide with it.

Using this logic, we can easily tell good/bad questions. Say, your question is:

Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?

Let's think that the OP genuinely wants to know why (and does not declare political slogans).

Here, it does not matter whether or not the deal itself good or bad (see (2) in the list above). The only thing that matters — and what the OP is asking about — is finding rationale behind why "some politicians" think/say so.

But if there are no links, we don't know who are these politicians, at what circumstances they said so, therefore we're unable to explain their point! The question becomes unanswerable.

Imagine the OP provided several links where a politician John Smith critics the Iranian deal. We may figure out that John Smith is affiliated with, for instance, Israel who historically finds any economical growth of Iran a strategical threat to Israel. This would be a correct answer to why John Smith opposes Iranian deal.

Again, this would not answer whether the deal itself is good or bad. But the question becomes (see the list above) to: (6) have context → hence (4) understandable → hence (3) answerable → hence (1) able to teach us something.

This way we composed it back to our mission.