HN guidelines strongly discourage editorializing in the titles of submissions, and these titles can be edited after the fact by site editors. Without the power

HN guidelines strongly discourage editorializing in the titles of submissions, and these titles can be edited after the fact by site editors. Without the power to editorialize in the title, I don't think there's a good way to distinguish between submitting something that you agree with and submitting something that you would like to discuss, even though you disagree with it. This is actually one reason why the anti-editorializing guideline makes sense. We really don't want HN to clog up with links to bad arguments that need refuting. There are far more bad articles than good ones, and the readers just don't have the time to sort them out for themselves. That's what HN is supposed to be doing for us! So we encourage people to submit only quality links, or suffer the consequences to their own reputation. I think it's important to remember that HN isn't designed to replace blogs. If you want to start a critical discussion about some piece of content, write a blog post that criticizes it, then submit that blog post. That's what I would do.