first point that 'no, nothing you will say will change my mind on this matter' so by stipulating this as a starting point it gives the person with the misguided and wrong answer (i.e. the easter bunny believer) a get-out clause which allows them never to have a discussion about their views and therefore continue to believe they are right. ttp://www.da-vane.com Da Vane The provision of evidence needs to be stuck off, unless all parties involved are prepared to have a rational discussion about what is and isn't acceptable evidence. Reason and rational argument doesn't require evidence -- it requires logic. This argument that you do not need evidence is the stance taken by people who believe that there IS an objective reality about subjective issues, where either anything can be classed as evidence, or evidence is unnecessary. Failure here means that the person demanding evidence is failing to meet the basic principles of reasonable and rational discussion themselves (that is, one of the first three questions in the flowchart end up being answered no, indicating that this is not a discussion by the person seeking to impose said rules). In short, the demand for evidence, which breaks what is basically point 7, in itself causes a break in points 1-3. Need evidence of this? I refer you to the entire branch of study known as Epistemology -- the science of knowledge. Noon I actually have an issue with point 2. If I am discussing something with you, and you