>>>>>And why is it that Kevin too often is not required to prove his statements? I'm simply tired of his arguing without having to prove his points, so now I ask him to do what he too often requires from others. Isn't that fair?
>>>>
>>>>You didn't ask him to prove his statement. You asked him to disprove someone else's. Not the same thing. So no, that is not fair. Ask him to prove one of his own statements if you think he has made a claim that is not supported.
>>>
>>>That's exactly my point, but I have used his own "gun" against him. Kevin is a coward by provoking others to make statements which he then asks them to prove. He is a coward and too lazy to make his own statements because he know that he may be asked to prove them. So, since he doesn't make any statement which I can ask him to prove, I am forced to do it this way instead. You may disagree with me, but I am pretty sure that you see that I have a valid point.
>>
>>No I do not. Your paragraph does not make sense. It is twisted logic. Because you cannot argue successfully against him, you want to create new rules for him. That would not be acceptable in any debate or discussion and you know it. It is a sham. I am dissappointed. Most of the participants here are highly intelligent (though with conflicting political views) and I find it saddening that they cannot or will not support their own position without resulting in such nonsense.
>
>I will have to call it a day now, but I will give you an example to explain what I mean. This is not a real discussion, but a discussion I made up to prove my point. The key here is that you are entitled to present opinions because you don't have to support or prove an opinion. But as soon as you present something which can be interpreted as a statement, whether it is a statement ot not, you may have to prove it. This is what I say is plain stupid and WRONG
>A: I think that too any people have guns, and I believe that if it wasn't legal to have a gun for protection, fewer people would have been killed.
>B. In my opinion it should be even easier to buy a gun because then everyone could protect themselves.
>A. But then even more people would get killed.
>B. Prove it...

A) Can be supported by studies and facts (simple fact - the statement doesn't specify who - criminals or innocents) would be killed.
B) Doesn't need support, it is a fact itself (everyone who owns a gun could use it for protection doesn't mention crime rates).
C) (2nd A statement) requires facts or studies to support it (if asked for).