Instead of saying:

• Old Testament Jews always considered the Spirit as an emphatic presence of God
• Christianity has no reason to deviate from this tradition

Say:

• Old Testament Jews always considered the Spirit as an emphatic presence of God
• Christianity has no reason to deviate from the tradition of the Spirit being an emphatic presence of God

Why? If there is reasoning to support the second premise, it will get its own page. If it gets its own page, it could seem really ambiguous (What’s “this tradition” it’s talking about?). At worst, someone else might make a point on another statement that has the exact same wording, but “this” refers to something else (a different tradition). In that case, because the definition of “this” unknowingly differs between you two, you will be developing reasoning for two different things and probably get pretty confused or fall into an editing war.

Instead of saying:

• tacos aren’t blue

Say:

• x tacos are blue

Why? When the counter-statement is made, it would be “x tacos aren’t blue,” which (to some) could make it sound like there’s some third option between tacos being blue and tacos not being blue. It’s also needlessly confusing. Finally, if this is done in excess, people might start to think that if something lacks the “x,” it’s more likely to be true or that those with the “x” only exist to deviate from the “main,” “real” statement (even though all statements are meant to be put on an equal playing field). In order to avoid double-negatives and have a standard way to represent ideas, we try to write things only in the positive form whenever possible.

Please contact me! loyalcj@outlook.com