YOU asked for citation in this thread that has already been given.
Me pander to your laziness or more than likely trolling … I won’t be bothered.
2 Likes
No, you’re just going to lie more.
The problem is that you ask for burden of proof when it has already been presented. Your intellectual dishonesty is only surpassed but your inability to answer a direct question.
You don’t get to ask for Proof then ignore the proof when it is given just because you can’t respond to it.
1 Like
Your standards are so doubled you can’t even keep it straight with yourself.
I’m sorry to tell you but here is what is going on:
- People in support of dual spec state the reasons it should be in the game
- People against dual spec rage and yell “go back to retail”
- People in support ask if there are any reasons it shouldn’t be in the game given the amount of changes we’ve already seen
- You idiots say “burden of proof is on you” in spite of the fact the proof has already been presented
- another 1800 posts asking for one single person from the anti-dual spec side to actual provide a counter-argument to the presented proof
- “lol no u”. that’s the extent of your argument.
Then you have the audacity to tell someone to go back and look up a citation when you won’t even do the same.
Even if you were intentionally trolling it’s such low effort and inconsistent that you just end up floundering around trying to make a point but never get around to it.
1 Like
You have made statements without any proof. Therefore burden is on you.
You have provided zero evidence. There is nothing to dispute.
1 Like
He’s just going in circles, Belshaman. He’s got nothing.
1 Like
As per your norm. Making claims you can’t back up.
- You gave an false claims and call it proof.
- No. I haven’t seen one person rage and yell “go back to retail” yet.
- False information is given. They are called out and can’t support their position. Sounds so much like a repeat of 1.
- Claim made with out proof means on you for proof.
- Really shows how there is no proof .
- Calling you out on you lack of any evidence is all the argument I need. Burden is on you.
If you had anything you’d easily be able to refer back to it.
1 Like
Full circle. He might as well have copy-pasted his last two posts.
1 Like
Now you’ve either not read a single thing I’ve posted then or you’re just outright lying.
Either way you look like an idiot.
If someone says “I think this should be in game for X, Y, Z reasons” that is their argument.
“go back to retail” isn’t a counter to X, Y, or Z.
I feel like you probably have a tenuous grasp on basic human interaction at this point let alone an understanding of debate or argumentation.
You’ve clearly demonstrated that you don’t even know:
- What an assertion is
- What an argument is
- What a “false claim” is
- What “False” means
I have made my argument, you haven’t refuted a single point of it.
We can keep dancing as long as you like but you really need to understand that what you are doing is not arguing you’re just talking. You’re just saying words that are irrelevant to the discussion and you are ignoring attempts to get you back on point.
yes it does. When dual spec?
They can be told “you thought wrong.” Statements made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your argument falls apart when someone says “show me the evidence,” that is on you.
Not a counter to anything. Why I don’t say it. Bringing it up to me, idk and idc.
Your projection here is comical.
Ad hominem attacks add no credence to your claims.
You made false statements called out by me and others.
Once again on your projection. If you made such a good augment you wouldn’t have abandoned it long ago.
1 Like
No. Not if you’ve made a statement without evidence. That’s on you.
This is you just trolling at this point.
The Oxford Dictionary describes trolling as making “a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them ”
1 Like
Oh, dear, he used the dictionary!
He must be using that word correctly and in a totally appropriate context since he cited the dictionary definition!
Belshaman, all you gotta do is just cite what he’s doing as trolling as well and throw the dictionary at him. Since I guess that’s the way that works, right?
Not on me because we never made it to that point. If a person makes no attempt to prove their argument it just dies right there. I don’t have to go any further.
That’s not true. Prove it!
law. cornell. edu/wex/burden_of_proof
Burden of Proof
In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. A “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof.
“In civil cases.”
Sorry, but now you gotta prove we’re in some kind of “civil case” as is attributed by your “proof.”
civil=ordinary citizens
court case=a dispute between parties