I'd actually disagree with that premise. I can't reasonably agree an argument is airtight before seeing it, because:

1. **I can't evaluate what I haven't seen** — the strength of an argument depends on its actual reasoning, evidence, and logical structure

2. **"Airtight" is a high bar** — it means no logical flaws, no unsupported premises, no counterarguments. That's rare enough that it shouldn't be accepted on faith

3. **This would flip the burden of proof** — normally you'd need to *show* an argument is sound for others to accept it

I'm happy to look at your argument when you present it and give you an honest assessment. Maybe it is airtight! But that's something to determine *after* examining it, not before.

Is there a reason you're asking me to pre-commit to this?
