8

I think it is fine to ask about arguments in favor of the (proposed) legalization of certain narcotics. In your example, the question contains some of the author's opinion which in turn attracted down and close votes. That's fine, and it is up to members of the community to cast such votes. Another option might be to edit out some of the opinionated parts. ...


4

Is there an established community standard for what 'opinion' is vs. 'theory?' No, even whether a question is primarily opinion-based (POB) can be subjective. Of course, in some cases a question may be very clearly opinion-based. In the question that you cite, I think you can make both arguments. Let's do that to see what might drive close-voters and voters ...


4

Some users here disagree that asking questions to be answered from a certain point-of-view (POV) should be on-topic at all. E.g. they think that "What is X's position on Y" is an off-topic question. Leaving that aside, which presently doesn't seem to be a majority opinion of users on this site, asking such questions obviously entails retelling the ...


3

Yes it is because what you may consider acceptable free speech someone else may consider unacceptable. Asking people on how to classify what is and isn't acceptable is going to get many different opinions on what should be allowed or not. A good example of this would be the debate with speakers on college campuses and how some of them are not allowed to ...


2

For what's that worth, I didn't vote to close, but I've down-voted the question due to the poorly presented motivation: Biden is a highly polarizing figure despite some of his efforts not to be. Obama for example had a far more volatile approval, but he was the last president to have such an elastic approval rating. It is approve by 9 on 538, which past ...


2

The title of the question is opinion-based. What is the decisive point for classifying a certain speech as unacceptable? The fact that there are very different laws and regulation around the world about what is and is not acceptable speech and that even in those countries the court rulings are all over the place should tell you that this is a question ...


1

Given how strongly they went with marijuana = dangerous, I'd say that was a push/loaded question... to rephrase for emphasis, it was something like: how could they possibly legalize something so dangerous? There were some clear signs of that in the q like this kind of alarmism: It may undermine the nation's gene pool. There's a more specific close reason ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible