The point isn’t what the poster believes is true, it’s that the poster should be aware of the difference between their opinions and statements supported by evidence, and that their posts should reflect that awareness for the benefit of readers.
It’s a kind of hubris, I think, the way some posters phrase their opinions as if they are the final arbiter of what is true.
There is a term for this. ‘Wishy-Washy’. 
I vote for this one.
There’s a flipside to what you’ve described, which is “epistemological solipsism” – “if I don’t know it, it doesn’t exist.” These are people who doubt that something is true, even if told by an expert, or by many people, if they’ve never heard of it/it doesn’t ring true to them.
I wish there were an equivalent term for what you described, because they seem related to me, in the sense that they might often exist in the same person.
“Dogmatic” is rigidity to principal not statement as fact without evidence.
At Dogmatic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, they’ve got
“Definition of dogmatic
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts”
“Hubristic” could also fit, I think.
I often think of this when I see a thread title starting with “RESOLVED:” - inevitably, it isn’t. I find it a rather ridiculous rhetorical device. You should prove your case before you assert the conclusion. And why post it on a messageboard if it’s so incontrovertibly the case that no-one could disagree?
In formal debate, the topic to be debated is always introduced as “RESOLVED: <whatever we’re going to debate>”. It’s meant as a clear statement of what one side is required to prove and the other is required to disprove.
But for the rest of us who’ve never been on a formal debate team it reads as you thought: an arrogant statement that the controversy is already settled before it even begins. That’s the exact opposite of the technical meaning.
We’ve had more than one thread debating the wisdom of using this technical term when most of the audience misunderstand it. And yet it persists. Perhaps debate team elitism is part of the mix.
Huh - I actually did formal debating at school, but in the UK it’s typically phrased: “This House believes that…”, with the ‘government’ arguing in favour of the proposition and the ‘opposition’, obviously, opposing it. The ‘House’ of course being the House of Commons (or Lords, I suppose). At least, that is what I was used to - this was specifically a ‘Parliamentary Debating’ contest, I guess the formalities for law school/courtroom-style ‘mooting’ contests are different.
Thanks for the information - ignorance fought once again. Maybe I’ll click on a couple of those threads, up to now I’ve tended to ignore them. Though I still suspect it is sometimes deliberately used in the way I originally perceived it.
I’m curious whether you’re talking about people who know the difference but omit to mention it, people who know the difference but deliberately decline to mention it, or people who simply don’t know the difference. And also how much you’re looking for a value-neutral term versus a pejoritive one.
If you (any you) have much self-awareness at all, every one of your opinions should include a confidence factor. If you’re oblivious to the difference between something you know deeply and thoroughly from real evidence versus something that just popped into your head one day, there’s not much more we can talk about usefully.
As is so often repeated around here, Americans seem to revel in the idea that my ignorance is just as valid as your expert opinion. That way lies societal madness.
I apologize for making a universal statement. My opening sentence should have led off with “In the USA …”
I suspect that at least some of the folks who title their posts “RESOLVED: …” are signalling that they want a real debate with cites, point by point refutations, logic, awareness of official fallacies, and all that stuff, not just the usual slanging match of competing opinions.
It’s virtue signal calling the pros into the thread and telling the plebes to stay out. I’m not sure it works as well as some adherents think it does.
Mostly the first one. The other two are likely unreachable, and what I hoped to convey was pretty much what you stated next. As for value-neutral vs. pejorative, I would say value-neutral as far as is possible. One would have to soften the word “dogmatic” quite a bit before anyone would be likely to accept it as value-neutral when applied to them.
Exactly.
I think it’s the same idea here. I believe it means “resolved” as in, “there shall be a resolution” or “it shall be resolved that…” which is a type of action by a legislative body. It doesn’t mean “resolved” as in, this debate is over. I’m not defending it’s use – I’m not a debate team person, and it sounds like it’s problematic here. Just thought this might help clarify how similar it is to what you’re familiar with.
In the absence of a good existing word, we could Liff it.
I submit we call it either Posty-Uchaf or Tresparrett Posts.
How about pressing some form of pontificate into service? Googling around, I see where it’s defined in terms of stating one’s opinions as if they are the only correct ones and nobody could possibly oppose them (and where it’s defined in terms of expressing opinions in — what else? — a dogmatic way).
I’ve seen it used both ways here:
In the debate style
In the style of someone who thinks they got elected Governor of Kindergarten