The issue/position/argument convention relies on keeping a neutral issue statement and rational arguments separate from the charged position statement. The main purpose of this convention is to allow but separate very strong statements of what was, what is or what should be and encourage rational debates of even the most extreme positions, e.g.:
This is obviously unacceptable as an article title in main namespace, as would be:
Imagine the impact on new users if such positions just appear as main page titles! It would be a disaster either way, but "position" moderates this view and encourages rational debate.
While such inane extreme positions are probably not worth much serious debate, they do sometimes help to illustrate lesser positions that are sincerely held. This illustrates some major problems with allowing positions as article titles without the position tag always and necessarily appearing in front of them:
Because of what a position:is, they are inherently not capable of being named from a neutral point of view: A position says what was, what is or what should be. It cannot be as neutral as a statement of what becomes, remains, equals.
This makes position names incompatible in principle with Wikipedia and other GFDL corpus namespace naming conventions: they will always have a point of view difference from every other position. To leave them in main namespace is therefore to turn the main namespace into a MemeTank. Argh.