If you know the domain then by all means assert (and explain why), but real expertise is rare so stray from that and you should be questioning.
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.
Adding caveats is no way to get people to engage with you. You want to be as concise as possible. Due to the exact same tendency OP is trying to control, it's better to baldly assert something as confidently as possible. Then people can't resist responding and telling you when you're 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.
> Adding caveats is no way to get people to engage with you.
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
OP is asking for ways of being less argumentative. You're telling him to continue doing the same thing he's been doing. Not an invalid response, presuming you have new reasoning for why that he may not have considered, but neither are other suggestions of how he might do things differently.
My goal with that response was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the exact approach I suggest within that same comment. A "form enhances function" kind of thing. Compare this comment which has multiple replies with my other comment in this thread which is less direct: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20790765
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.
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.