Isn't it enough to just accept a sort of NPOV convention? People can disagree that "you should practice lying" but they can hardly disagree that "some people have argued you should practice lying".
That's not much good as a guide to action, then, is it?
When the issue being discussed is how we can justify claims, no actual assertion can be 'neutral' in the Wikipedia sense, because even the statement that some position has been taken falls under question.
One of the missions of OB/LW is to attract new learners, and it's clear that they are succeeding. But the format feels like a very difficult one for those new to these ideas, with beginner-level ideas interspersed with advanced or unsettled theory and meta-level discussions. You wouldn't play <insert cool-sounding, anime-ish video game here> with the levels on shuffle mode, but reading Less Wrong must feel like doing so for initiates.
How do we make the site better for learners? Provide a "syllabus" that shows a series of OB and LW posts which should be read in order? Have a separate beginner site or feed or header? Put labels on posts that designate them with a level?