ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
Unsourced allegations lacking in content. You'll have to do better then this; there is a vast wealth of material by and about Gore online, so no transcription is necessary.
Cycloptichorn
Read his books! If those books were online, you could avoid transcription and resort merely to reading and copying excerpts on line.
I have read some of them. However, as the person who is making the affirmative argument that Gore is illogical, the burden of providing proof of this argument is upon you, not me.
Please produce evidence of illogic, or withdraw your accusation.
Cycloptichorn
:wink:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
The burden of proof in a debate falls on the affirmative side; the one making a claim in this case
...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Cycloptichorn
I think you did not understand your own reference.
Quote:Fallacy: Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
Your argument is that I did not prove X true, therefore, X is false:
I did not prove Gore is a fool, therefore Gore is not a fool.
no, my friend, you did not understand either my argument or the piece that I quoted, which is quite funny. You bolded a part that is immaterial to our conversation.
...
You have made the affirmative claim that gore is a fool, but you have provided no evidence of this. I have never claimed that your failure to provide evidence proves that he isn't a fool; that would be silly. Instead, I have argued that you have not provided evidence to support your claim, and there is no reason to believe it has any relevance until you do so.
Cycloptichorn
On the contrary, I did provide evidence to support my claim. I provided you a paraphrase of Gore's argument. Transcribing Gore's entire argument is more than I want to spend my time doing.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
You have made the affirmative claim that gore is a fool, but you have provided no evidence of this. I have never claimed that your failure to provide evidence proves that he isn't a fool; that would be silly. Instead, I have argued that you have not provided evidence to support your claim, and there is no reason to believe it has any relevance until you do so.
Cycloptichorn
You asserted that my evidence is not valid. Based on what do you assert my evidence is not valid?
Until you say otherwise, I'll assume you don't know.
It is a frequent tactic of the pseudo-liberal to accuse those with whom they disagree of not providing what they are willing to agree is evidence. They continually insist on more evidence than that provided without themselves offering any evidence of their own to justify their rejection of the evidence provided.
Don't bother to ask me to prove that true. You by yourself have already provided more than sufficient evidence to show that statement true for you.
The same is true for my last statement!
