O.K., let's not forget the Terms of use:
Quote:
RULES OF ENGAGMENT
The following maxim shall exist as the supreme law governing debate on the SuiJuris.net message boards: He who leaves the battlefield first looses by default.
A Member initiating (Initiator) a post or responding (Respondent) thereto of which results in a debate especially with regard to Theology or Politics, he/she must be willing and able to participate in a intellectual discussion or debate in respect of the post in question. Initiating of nuisance posts as “cheap shots” is prohibited. In the event SUIJURIS.NET reviews and determines that a member is the Initiator or Respondent regarding a controversial, blatantly false, or unintelligible post, and such has given rise to adversarial commentary wherein the post initiator or respondent willfully disregards his/her duty to respond and adhere to the rules of engagement, then the membership of that particular individual may be subject to suspension. However, if a member has been successfully out-debated that individual’s membership will NOT be subject to suspension.
|
O.K. This is how it is going to work:
The Initiator is Heidi or anyone else, etc . ..
Shoonra, Bill Smith, etc . . or anyone else at odds w/Heidi is the respondent or vice versa
Initiatormust state a premise and a question
The repondent must state a yes or no answer first
If the answer is in the negative, then grounds in law and in fact must be put forth to show why free indeeds or any other iniators' premise is both illogical and false. Any extraneous information not relevant to the original premise and question will be deleted.
Only one premise at a time. Extraneous premises can only be introduced AFTER the priginal one is debated or answered.