"Lianara;579589" wrote:
"leef;579500" wrote:
This is just a horrible argument. We are debating something neither of us can proof, and you're dismissing it because its an assumption without anything backing it up. Your assumption that it is in fact not what is happening on the forum currently, isnt backed up either. We both made assumptions that neither of us can proof, so simply calling it an assumption is just a hollow argument that looks good on paper.
You and OP made an assumption, which is the basis, the premise, of both of your arguments. I don't have to backup my assumption, merely point out that your original premise is flawed. If you do expect me to provide evidence to disprove your assumption in order to disprove it, this becomes is a logical fallacy, actually called 'Argument from Ignorance',
You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right.
The burden of proof of the underlying premise is with those bringing the argument forward, not those calling it wrong. If you do bring any sort of proof, the burden shifts.
And by the way, I am NOT arguing that your (and OPs) premise is right or wrong, just pointing out that lack of facts about the underlying assumption invalidates the argument.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Anywhere on the forum, there's criticism of the game, the employees, the company . And they are the same and are repeated often. I don't need to prove this as it's common knowledge, anyone with eyes and a phone can see it.
