>>>>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).
>
>OK, I will simplify it even more:
>
>A. I think your sister is pretty
>B. I don't think she is very pretty
>A. Your sister is the prettiest girl in the world
>B. Prove it...
>
>My point is that it's not WHAT is argued that is important, it's HOW it's argued.

I don't think using an example of "adjectives" which are purely subjective (and only opinion not fact) is appropriate.