We're starting to see a pattern emerge of people turning "Is X effective?" into "What are the pros and cons of X?"
I think this is a good direction to go generally. Providing a list of pros and/or cons is (more or less) objective.
- Why do experts recommend learning Esperanto?
- What pros and cons do adults face while learning compared to children
- Ups and Downs of learning from non-native speaker rather than native speaker
My question is, should the pros and cons lists be separate questions?
On Christianity.SE*, we have a general rule that such questions ought to be split into two. Although the nature of questions is somewhat different, usually asking "What is the theological reason for X?" followed by the counter-part question, "What is the theological reason against X?"
How do we want to handle these situations here?
*Although the questions on Christianity.SE are generally less objective than even here. On Christianity.SE, this rule tends to apply to questions of doctrine, where there are multiple possible interpretations. "Does the Bible say X is a sin?" is better asked as "What is the Biblical argument that X is a sin?" and for the other side, "What is the Biblical argument that X is not a sin?"
While such a distinction certainly is possible here ("What is the argument that X is beneficial to language learning?" and "What is the argument that X is not beneficial to language learning?"), it may not be helpful here, where holy wars (literally or figuratively) are less common over disagreements.