glamorilla
gorilla your dreams
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2002
- Posts
- 31,174
The important thing is to ignore their attempts to assert an unproven premise, for example "Trump is racist". They then expect you to 'prove' the opposite, and if you fail in any way to successfully refute a particular point or argument, they then try to assert their original claim as 'true'.
It's the same tactic used by religious people. They assert god exists by default and demand you 'prove' he doesn't. And if you don't have an answer for every single argument they bring up, they think they by default 'win' the original claim.
Case in point:
By pointing out that adrina actually has the burden of proof for her claim that Trump is racist, her entire position falls apart and so she defaults to name calling and dropping any pretense of actual debate. Her belief Trump is racist is like a religious zealot's belief in god; it cannot be questioned and the non believers are expected to do all the work of disproving their claim.
Classic Burdern of Proof fallacy.
well that and you were right to begin with.