I have the following argument, and I would like to ask if my reasoning is sound:
The Stack exchange has the following guideline for philosophy question:
(1) Is your question about philosophy? We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed.
(2) Provide details. Share your research. If your question is about this website, ask it on meta instead.
Regarding (1): I suggest that all questions are philosophy questions, since question is a form of inquiry, and all form of inquiry leads to one form of knowledge or another. As philosophy is the study of knowledge, all questions are philosophy questions. Therefore, this guideline since redundant and impractical.
Furthermore, if we agree that validity is not a necessary condition for what constitutes an answer, then all questions can be answered. This is evident since if we assume the converse, then there would be no possible answer for the question: "Is this question not answerable?". For this reason, I argue that there are no criteria for "question cannot be answered but only discussed"
Regarding (2): For those who find my elaboration in (1) unnecessary and unwanted, here I argue that I'm just following guideline number 2. Plus, this is not necessary a meta question, since I'm asking about the soundness of my argument, rather than anything directly related to the website (provided my definition: A is related to B iff the subject of B is referred to in A. If you want a stronger definition of related as having a causal connection, then this guideline would imply all questions on stack-exchange belongs to the meta forum, which is absurd)