Winners only.

[ThxOne Premium Member]

If you want to use a hypothetical to support your weakaass argument, you should use one that doesn't fall flat on its face immediately, you dummy.

We're specifically talking about the concept of not having to prove a claim, and you provide a hypothetical where the initial claim would ALWAYS come with proof that would then have to be disproved.

Sorry kid, there is nothing you can argue that is going to change the concept of the burden of proof to tilt things to your line of thinking. Just like percentages, averages, energy prices, et al.
You can try to sin it any way you want, but those things just don't change.
You may hate the concept, but the burden of proof will not change.

Since you obviously didn't read it the last time, I'll share again:
"Burden Of proof
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

In other words "back it up, or it's automatically bullshit".

Still waiting for you to prove there wasn't mass voter fraud and that the Democrats didn't release COVID.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Media pushing for civil war:

Online violent extremist rhetoric soars after Mar-a-Lago search

The content was flooding far-right message boards and social media platforms. Phrases including "civil war" and "lock and load" trended on several of them.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Be careful there. If I am on a jury then we are speaking to someone's life. If she yells **** and I am on the jury, I will not convict with out visual evidence. I am a grown man, I don't cower and I don't back into a corner. I never said I don't care if a woman gets *****. I think if a woman gets ***** they person who ***** her should be hung... no pun.... drawn and quartered. I said I don't just believe her just because she says it. People lie, women lie to a greater degree. I know you want to jump right to believing her because she is a woman and you would feel sorry for her. That's what they count on, simps.

Your whole logic of having to prove somebody is lying just lost all credibility. You told to prove that you were lying after you said what you said. Yet you want a woman to prove that she was telling the truth when she says that she was taped. You are a walking contradiction. Good luck.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Still waiting for you to prove there wasn't mass voter fraud and that the Democrats didn't release COVID.

Read closely. Are the words too complicated for you?

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

"BACK IT UP OR IT'S AUTOMATICALLY BULLSHIT"

You want to claim mass voter fraud or the "release of COVID" then BACK IT UP. Otherwise, it's bullshit by default. Like most of what you claim.
Quite the fantasy world you live in, where none of the rules apply to you.
"No officer, in MY world we GO on a red light"

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Read closely. Are the words too complicated for you?

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

"BACK IT UP OR IT'S AUTOMATICALLY BULLSHIT"

You want to claim mass voter fraud or the "release of COVID" then BACK IT UP. Otherwise, it's bullshit by default. Like most of what you claim.

Read this closely......... closer.................... EAT A DIICK!! What is stated in your example is not absolute either. "Typically" I am sure you can look that word up and find its meaning. This statement you posted is also not a rule or a law. It is a suggestion.

Listen, you unwiped turd, you claim there was no voter fraud that would affect the election. Should be easy to prove that right? I mean, there is video evidence of ballot tampering of which the timeline for the massive influx of Biden votes matches up... you know, after the voting was over. When people went to bed then suddenly, overnight, Biden pulled a "victory" out of his asss. This was visible for all who wanted to see it. Most secured election in history huh? By secured did Democrats mean safe or did they mean obtained?

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

the ACTUAL deposition was 4 hours. you have recess and breaks in between. Im sure Trump wasnt sitting at lunch with his lawyers reciting the 5th.

He was still there for six hours pleading the fifth on and off. Six hours is six hours.

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

He was still there for six hours pleading the fifth on and off. Six hours is six hours.

I'm at work for 9 hours, but i work 8 hours

but i see that saying he pled the 5th for 6 hours is WAYYYYYYYYY worst then pleading out for 4 hours so go with it man....

 

[Kayge 10+ year member]

I don't like or trust hypocrites in the least.

then certainly you should have many issues with Biden and every other politician in office as well????

or is this just talking out the side of your mouth at Trump type of thing?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

then certainly you should have many issues with Biden and every other politician in office as well????

or is this just talking out the side of your mouth at Trump type of thing?

Show me Biden's hypocrisy and I'll say I dislike it.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Read this closely......... closer.................... EAT A DIICK!! What is stated in your example is not absolute either. "Typically" I am sure you can look that word up and find its meaning. This statement you posted is also not a rule or a law. It is a suggestion.

Listen, you unwiped turd, you claim there was no voter fraud that would affect the election. Should be easy to prove that right? I mean, there is video evidence of ballot tampering of which the timeline for the massive influx of Biden votes matches up... you know, after the voting was over. When people went to bed then suddenly, overnight, Biden pulled a "victory" out of his asss. This was visible for all who wanted to see it. Most secured election in history huh? By secured did Democrats mean safe or did they mean obtained?

Ahhhhh, HAHAHAHA the old homophobia argument.
You have nothing and so you resort to an attempted homphobic insult.
Sorry kid, I'm not ********** like you. Telling me to do a homosexual act is not an insult, any more than telling me to go ride a bike.

YOU claimed there was mail-in vote fraud and that COVID was "released" by Democrats to effect a win by Biden.
BURDEN OF PROOF, dummy:
"the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"
Substantiate your claim, or it is by default bullshit.

Is it "staus quo" that you are confused by, or maybe "substantiate"? 'cuz the rest of the idea is pretty fekking simple. Most children figure it out innately.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Ahhhhh, HAHAHAHA the homophobia argument.
You have nothing and so you resort to an attempted homphobic insult.
Sorry kid, I'm not ********** like you. Telling me to do a homosexual act is not an insult, any more than telling me to go ride a bike.

YOU claimed there was mail-n vote fraud and that COVID was "released" by Democrats to effect a win by Biden.
BURDEN OF PROOF, dummy:
"the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"
Substantiate your claim, or it is by default bullshit.

Is it "staus quo" that you are confused by, or maybe "substantiate"? 'cuz the rest of the idea is pretty fekking simple. Most children figure it out innately.

You aren't scared of the gay's? Ok, to each their own.

What is it that is confusing you? is the the word "typically" or diicks?

This works both ways. You said no voter fraud. I say you are a liar. Substantiate your claim or it is bullshit.

A claim is a claim is a claim.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I'm at work for 9 hours, but i work 8 hours

but i see that saying he pled the 5th for 6 hours is WAYYYYYYYYY worst then pleading out for 4 hours so go with it man....

Even if he pled once and it tool 4 seconds, he is still a massively loud-mouthed hypocrite who is all talk and no walk.
Should stick to his guns or never have flapped his gums.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Even if he pled once and it tool 4 seconds, he is still a massively loud-mouthed hypocrite who is all talk and no walk.
Should stick to his guns or never have flapped his gums.

Is that why you are the way you are? A know it all loudmouth and you are just sticking to your guns?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Even if he pled once and it tool 4 seconds, he is still a massively loud-mouthed hypocrite who is all talk and no walk.
Should stick to his guns or never have flapped his gums.

What politician isn't a hypocrite...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You aren't scared of the gay's? Ok, to each their own.

What is it that is confusing you? is the the word "typically" or diicks?

This works both ways. You said no voter fraud. I say you are a liar. Substantiate your claim or it is bullshit.

A claim is a claim is a claim.

You seem scared of the English language, but I am not afraid of someone based on their sexuality. Why are you afraid of homosexuals. Latent feelings that scare you?

Sorry, but a "claim is a claim is a claim" is not how it works. You make the initial unfounded claim, and it's automatically bullshit until you prove it.
Here's how my claim that yours is bullshit is substantiated: "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"
There, my conterclaim is proved. Now prove your initial claim.

Thirty posts later and you still can't prove a fekking thing, so you want to try to change the argument to whether "burden of proof" is a real concept, and whether it applies to your entitled self.
Painted yourself into yet another corner of logic failure.

Even the other guys here who would back you up just to be contrary to me are staying away from your train wreck of an argument, lol