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 thinktanker 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 lets say genetic engineering  writes a reply in Reason Magazine  Here the causeandeffect relationship is clear and all the sources are perfectly verifiable  The logical order is to present Alices argument and then a summary of Bettys rebuttal  Perhaps many outsiders feel that Bettys rebuttal is a non sequitur which fails to address the key points in Alices thesis  OK thats their right  but the Wikipedia article cant legitimately reflect that until Carol writes a new thesis saying so  I have bad memories of highschool 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 counterpoint of a recognized type    Thats not discourse  Im afraid that the grounded and democratic approach Ive seen so far will devolve into a William S Burroughs cutup 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