>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>OK, a third, and last, example:
>>>
>>>A. I support my mayor because he lives in my neighborhood
>>>B. I don't like him since he doesn't support building a new hospital
>>>A. He doesn't support building a new hospital because he has other priorities
>>>B. Prove it
>>
>>Still not a good example. The 3rd line is presented as a factual statement not an opinion and should be supported by providing a list of his priorities or statements from the mayor.
>
>EXACTLY my point, Tracy! Kevin is presenting opinions all the time, and provoking others to write something which usually also are opinions. But since they forget to present their opinions as opinions, he requires proof and documentation. And this is what I call unfair and cowardly, because he does this all the time. He "sets traps" and as soon as someone falls into his "trap", he takes full control and try to demean the victim.

OK. If you feel that way then rather than demand he participate under different rules (disproving someone else's statements), those methods will be brought to light if the other person simply replies that his comment was meant as a view or opinion and not facts supported by evidence (yet). If you feel his methods used were wrong, then point that out but do not try to enforce he participate under different rules than everyone else. I'll state again: sometimes views and opinions are proven accurate by studies, facts, evidence, etc that arise later. It's ok to have opinion and views. It's all part of healthy discussions.