Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

=== Assistant: Below is the argument-map for xRegardsx OP’s reply, based only on what you’ve provided so far Greg’s comment + this rep… ===
Below is the argument-map for xRegardsx (OP)’s reply, based only on what you’ve provided so far (Greg’s comment + this reply).

==== I’m splitting the reply into distinct claims/arguments (some are factual/descriptive, some are normative, some are “burden of proof” moves). ====

===== B1. “It’s more than just a ‘sub-reddit post.’” =====
* Claim: Greg is using the wrong frame/genre for judging it; it isn’t meant to be treated like an ordinary casual Reddit post.

B2. “It’s a full guide… pinned… for that reason.”
* Claim bundle: - B2a: It’s a full guide. - B2b: It contains important context needed to engage productively. - B2c: It’s a starting place for newcomers. - B2d: It is pinned at the top specifically because it serves those functions.

===== B3. “Your not wanting to read the entire thing is not an everyone problem… you’re the first person to have an issue with it in this way.” =====
* Claim: Greg’s complaint is personal/atypical, not a general design flaw.

B4. “If you don’t want to read it all at once… save/bookmark and finish later.”
* Claim: There’s a practical workaround; the length isn’t inherently disqualifying.

B5. “If posts weren’t meant to be this long… they would have made the maximum… shorter (this falls just under the maximum).”
* Argument: Platform constraints imply that long posts are within intended/allowed use; therefore “too long” is less compelling as a criticism.

===== B6. “If you don’t know what is doing the ‘drowning,’ then you can’t really say it’s not justified… and if you do know… say what specifically doesn’t need to be in the guide.” =====
* Argument: Greg’s critique is either (a) insufficiently specified, or (b) should be specified so it can be evaluated.

===== B7. “‘What is AI Therapy?’ is just the first of many topics… which is why it starts off with saying there’s much more…” =====
* Claim: Greg’s “first half” framing misses that the post is intentionally broad and multi-topic.

===== B8. “Thanks for the critique of the part you were able to get through.” =====
* Not really an argument; it functions as a polite (slightly pointed) acknowledgement.

==== ### ====

An argument is “currently in question” only if it’s challenged by another argument that is ''not itself in question'' (i.e., a standing objection).

===== At this moment, no one has replied to OP yet, so there are no standing objections against OP’s points. =====

✅ Currently unquestioned (so far): B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7
(B8 isn’t a claim that can really be “in question” in the argumentative sense.)

⚠️ Currently in question: (none yet)

🔥 Contested both ways: (none yet)

==== This isn’t required by your instruction, but it helps show the “currently” logic in action: ====
* OP’s reply introduces standing objections to Greg’s “too long / not fit for Reddit / smartphone NO” cluster. Since nobody has challenged OP yet, those objections currently stand.

So Greg’s earlier claims now look like this:
* A2/A3/A4 (too many words / NYT article / smartphone NO) → ⚠️ currently in question (challenged by OP’s B1–B6, which are currently unchallenged).
* A5 (first half is 100% spot on) → ✅ currently unquestioned (OP doesn’t dispute it; arguably acknowledges it).
* A6 (should be the standard model) → ✅ currently unquestioned (OP doesn’t reject it; doesn’t explicitly endorse it either, but no standing objection exists yet).

Send the next comment whenever you’re ready, and I’ll repeat the same process.