`::Whether an argument is ``responsive to the ones already there`` is necessarily a judgment call.  While in general terms I am quite sympathetic to this concern, policy dictates that the Wikipedia is not the place to resolve such a dispute.  ::Alice, a think-tanker at the Cato Institute, writes a screed saying that the WTA is only so much futurehype.  In response, Betty — a noted author in the field of, let's say, genetic engineering — writes a reply in Reason Magazine.  Here, the cause-and-effect relationship is clear, and all the sources are perfectly verifiable.  The logical order is to present Alice's argument and then a summary of Betty's rebuttal.  ::Perhaps many outsiders feel that Betty's rebuttal is a non sequitur which fails to address the key points in Alice's thesis.  OK, that's their right — but the Wikipedia article can't legitimately reflect that until Carol writes a new thesis saying so.  ::I have bad memories of high-school debate team, where who ``wins`` each round is determined not by the cogency of any argument but by ensuring that each point in the ``flow`` is followed by a counter-point of a recognized type. . .  That's not discourse.  I'm afraid that the grounded and democratic approach I've seen so far will devolve into a William S. Burroughs cut-up pastiche of scholarship, which would be a real pity.  Bear in mind that I exhausted my store of real knowledge on this subject quite some time ago, so all I can offer is argumentation on rhetorical grounds.     `