Why sacrifice conciseness to try and alleviate every misunderstanding? Language is not a perfect communication tool - you'll talk yourself dizzy trying to catch every edge case and possible interpretation.
> Every one in this threat seems to be well enough versed on English that a specific language barrier isn't an issue, but there are probably people for whom English is a third or forth language: the chance of them seeing as obvious everything that we pick out as obvious is going to be lower than for those with more practise at the language.
Great! So we're doing them a great service by giving them practice in reading context.
> It is not about conviction, it is about accurately displaying the source and potential veracity of the information being presented.
Why? This isn't an academic discussion. If it looks like you're presenting something as a fact and I think you're full of shit, I'll ask for a clarification. Much like the poster did with the "[citation needed]". The OP's message remains easy to read, and the sub-poster got the clarification they were looking for.
> I couch my opinions so it doesn't look like I'm stating a commonly known fact instead of something I've supposed. Of course where I'm pretty damn sure what I'm stating is verifiable fact I'll not bother adding the extra words, but if you always assume you are correct and write in a style that suggests such, then you may be one of those people! Adding a few extra words to tell the reader this extra information about the (potential) quality of the information you are about to impart is useful IMO. Be as fine grained as you like too: somewhere between "I think that" and "I know" is "It is my understanding that..." and so on.
You're sacrificing conciseness for a very weak attempt at clarity. It's incredibly tedious to read someone's opinion piece that says "It's my opinion that vaccines are dangerous. I think that X. I believe that Y. I am of the opinion that Z." It makes your message incredibly boring and unpersuasive.
Further, trying to turn this into an academic discussion brings into question all the issues academic discussions engender. How reliable is your source? Have you done the appropriate background reading? If you link a study that says "vaccines are bad" but there are 300 other studies that say "vaccines are good", are you really being objective?
And then of course we can get into some really stupid semantic debates, since we're arguing about semantics anyway - what's the cutoff? If I say "the barn is red", do you want spectroscopy results?