Army Guy Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 5 hours ago, Moonbox said: The point of contention is that you are asking someone to prove something didn't happen. That's silly. The burden of proof is almost always on the affirmative claim. If you are claiming something happened, you have to show evidence of it. Demanding evidence that it didn't happen is nonsensical - like asking people to disprove that aliens exist. It's impossible. He was the one making the accusation that it did not happen, just because he believes Carney is a god.......the burden of proof is on him... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Moonbox Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: He was the one making the accusation that it did not happen, just because he believes Carney is a god.......the burden of proof is on him... Here's a logical exercise that I sincerely (no troll) would hope you indulge me on: If I claim that Pierre Poilievre is a transvestite and that there is verified original footage of him doing drag shows at underground bars, you'd probably contest that claim, right? Assuming you do, who has the burden of proof here? Are you now required to prove to me that Poilievre isn't a tranny? Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 17 hours ago, User said: Come back when you can discuss specifics. You can’t win on the facts, so this is your usual stupidity. Maybe you can tell me, specifically, what you're looking for? Specificity is your kryptonite, not mine. 🤡 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 23 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Maybe you can tell me, specifically, what you're looking for? Specificity is your kryptonite, not mine. 🤡 No worries, this is your dumb game. Quote
Moonbox Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 (edited) 37 minutes ago, User said: No worries, this is your dumb game. My game is highlighting your dumb game, I guess? The amount of times you've accused someone of lying on this forum is batshit. I'll continue pointing that out until you learn to behave and debate like a reasonable human being. 🙃 Edited March 4 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 10 minutes ago, Moonbox said: My game is highlighting your dumb game, I guess? The amount of times you've accused someone of lying on this forum is batshit. I'll continue pointing that out until you learn to behave and debate like a reasonable human being. 🙃 Again, it doesn’t matter how many times, what matters is if it’s true. Just like the Ukraine War thread you ran away from. You purposefully misquote me, to make a dishonest argument, and I repeatedly point that out. At some point, I’m just cutting to the chase and calling you a liar. You don’t like it? Then stop doing it. Quote
CdnFox Posted March 4 Report Posted March 4 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: Here's a logical exercise that I sincerely (no troll) would hope you indulge me on: If I claim that Pierre Poilievre is a transvestite and that there is verified original footage of him doing drag shows at underground bars, you'd probably contest that claim, right? Assuming you do, who has the burden of proof here? Are you now required to prove to me that Poilievre isn't a tranny? This is something that the left really doesn't understand and frequently tries to use in debates incorrectly. While formal debate environments may have different rules, it has long been established the discussions on the internet don't have that same burden of proof that you see in a debate club. Did you make a statement the other person may choose to say that they don't believe that statement is true. If that happens it would normally be expected that you would provide some species of evidence be it in the form of a logical argument, citation from source which appears to support it, or some other form of convincing evidence. But you are not expected to provide proof. If you provide evidence which supports your claim then it would be up to him to provide some evidence to refute it if he didn't believe it. That evidence would have to be at least at or superior to the level of quality of your evidence. And again the definition of evidence isn't quite the same, it very frequently won't be in the form of a citation So if you say you think pierre is a trans because you heard it from someone, that's a fairly low bar, but it's some specieis of evidence. I might reasonably reply we have a pretty detailed account of his history and nowhere in his history is there any suggestion he's a trans or does anyone who know him seem to suggest that that's the case and you would expect that there would be if he was genuinely trans. That's not proof he's NOT but it IS evidence and more solid than yours If you reply "well i have a video",,, well that's pretty compelling proof, now it would be up to me to show the video was unreliable OR that it's out of context or some similar thing IF i wish to continue to argue it's not true. There is no burden of proof as you would find in a court case or a debate club or the like. You are expected to make your case for the circumstances and add whatever evidence you can or you feel is necessary and it is up to the other person to do the same thing and then it simply a question of who made the most compelling case for their position. And this is often where you lose discussions because you get so focused on my new show and detail that doesn't address the overall case that you wind up making mistakes and failing to put a good case together 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Moonbox Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 22 hours ago, User said: Again, it doesn’t matter how many times, what matters is if it’s true. When "LIAR!" is your default response against anyone who disagrees with you, and you've repeated it thousands of times across hundreds of threads, you're no identifying deception. You're just projecting it. 22 hours ago, User said: Just like the Ukraine War thread you ran away from. You purposefully misquote me, to make a dishonest argument, and I repeatedly point that out. At some point, I’m just cutting to the chase and calling you a liar. That was just another example of you not being capable of holding a debate without compulsive accusations of lying. How much time is someone supposed to waste on you when that's all you can ever come back with? Is that a good use of my time, or yours? Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 2 minutes ago, Moonbox said: When "LIAR!" is your default response against anyone who disagrees with you, and you've repeated it thousands of times across hundreds of threads, you're no identifying deception. You're just projecting it. See, this is a very dishonest characterization. It is not my default response, let alone for "disagreement." When folks like you lie, and are dishonest, I call that out. If it seems to happen a lot to you and others... well... stop lying. 3 minutes ago, Moonbox said: That was just another example of you not being capable of holding a debate without compulsive accusations of lying. What on Earth do you know about holding a debate? LOL 4 minutes ago, Moonbox said: How much time is someone supposed to waste on you when that's all you can ever come back with? Is that a good use of my time, or yours? Well... if you find yourself frequently told that you are lying... stop lying. Quote
Moonbox Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 21 hours ago, CdnFox said: While formal debate environments may have different rules, it has long been established the discussions on the internet don't have that same burden of proof that you see in a debate club. That's true, but it's also true that the burden of proof and basic human reasoning don't flip upside down because you want them to. If your system holds that unsupported claims are valid until somehow disproven, then the most effective debate strategy is just to continue making as many claims as possible. That's not actual reasoning, but it does explain a lot of your content here. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Army Guy Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 On 3/4/2026 at 12:19 PM, Moonbox said: Here's a logical exercise that I sincerely (no troll) would hope you indulge me on: If I claim that Pierre Poilievre is a transvestite and that there is verified original footage of him doing drag shows at underground bars, you'd probably contest that claim, right? Assuming you do, who has the burden of proof here? Are you now required to prove to me that Poilievre isn't a tranny? what is it that Chretien said...the proof is the proof...does it matter, who he really is....Justin played black face 3 times and no one seemed to mind, and he was as gay as they come....and liberal voters still turned out in record numbers....come on its 2026 baby... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Moonbox Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: what is it that Chretien said...the proof is the proof...does it matter, who he really is....Justin played black face 3 times and no one seemed to mind, and he was as gay as they come....and liberal voters still turned out in record numbers....come on its 2026 baby... What on Earth does Justin's blackface have to do with providing evidence for claims made? 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 27 minutes ago, Moonbox said: What on Earth does Justin's blackface have to do with providing evidence for claims made? I don’t know why you seem so concerned about providing evidence for claims because you jumped in to defend Beaver here when the criticism I’m making is that he was making baseless assertions without evidence and running away when called out. You are more butt hurt that I dared call him a liar over his dishonesty. 1 Quote
Moonbox Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 50 minutes ago, User said: You are more butt hurt that I dared call him a liar over his dishonesty. Since you call anyone and everyone who disagrees with you a liar, and you've repeated this pattern thousands of times on this forum in hundreds of threads, I'm afraid the problem is you. 🙃 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
John Johnston Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 On 7/30/2023 at 7:34 AM, BeaverFever said: No no way am I an apologist, I am an advocate for increased military spending. You are the one opposing it and your comments about “Canadian Disease” demonstrate you have this ridiculous belief that Canada is not a legitimate country and must mind its place with substandard capabilities. Mentalities such as yours are the real Canadian Disease. When Vancouver hosted the 2010 olympics people with your mentality were upset that the Canadian Olympic team had a strategy to win gold medals because people like you worried Canada winning medals would offend other more deserving countries. How dare a mediocre, second-rate country like Canada aspire to rise above its station, that’s an insult to our betters, they said. In their view, Canadas rightful place in any ordered ranking is middle of the pack, ahead of third world countries but dead last among developed nations. The people who want who want to slash the military budget point out that in total spending Canada ranks 14th in the world. How dare we rank #14 they say, even that position is too grand for mediocre country such as ours. . Never mind our country has the world’s second largest landmass, the #1 largest offshore territory and #1 longest coastline on 3 oceans, what matters most to them is that we must always think of ourselves as insignificant pipsqueaks and we must mind our place accordingly. Typical of the insecure, small-minded colonial mentality that pervades many corners of Canada, especially those from older generations who grew up under a British flag and US leadership during the Cold War. The tall Canadian poppy must always be cut down In fact I would argue that you don’t care about the CAF at all, you have an interest in the army but only because you have a personal connection to it so it’s really just about YOU and not about CAF at all. Well said. 1 Quote
User Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 13 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Since you call anyone and everyone who disagrees with you a liar, and you've repeated this pattern thousands of times on this forum in hundreds of threads, I'm afraid the problem is you. 🙃 Yet another lie from you. I don’t call anyone and everyone that merely disagrees with me a lair. Once again, I presented to you the particulars of this discussion and why the term was used, and you ignore that, and want to make dishonest hasty generalizations instead. Quote
CdnFox Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 6 hours ago, Moonbox said: That's true, but it's also true that the burden of proof and basic human reasoning don't flip upside down because you want them to. Good thing I never suggested that. Actually the way I describe things is how the human brain works most of the time. I realize you wouldn't have known that personally or anything Quote If your system holds that unsupported claims are valid until somehow disproven, then the most effective debate strategy is just to continue making as many claims as possible. You've met robosmith i see But no, that's not what i proposed at all and no that would not be an effective strategy. The problem with the current strategy and we see this from you all the time as well as many other people here is that if you insist that someone must definitively prove something before they are allowed to use it in an argument then people tend to keep demanding more and more proof and then just dismiss the proof as it comes in for one reason or another and say it's not sufficiently proof worthy and when arguments that way. And that's not okay. So generally the way it works is that if somebody makes a claim that you're going to refute it then the burden is on you to make a case as to why it's not true using at least as high or higher evidence as was provided which might take the form of logic or reason. For example if you were to claim that the sun rose in the west this morning I might refute it with the logical argument of the sun rises in the east, it always rises in the east, there's no reason to believe it's different today and that would be a reasonable argument Now the ball would be back in your court to explain why something exceptional happened or provide evidence or the like etc. Trying to win an argument by demanding cites or Focusing on minutiae there's more childish than it is practical. If you genuinely think somebody is wrong about something dig up the evidence to make that case one way or another and present it 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Moonbox Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 22 hours ago, CdnFox said: Good thing I never suggested that. Actually the way I describe things is how the human brain works most of the time. I realize you wouldn't have known that personally or anything You've met robosmith i see But no, that's not what i proposed at all and no that would not be an effective strategy. The problem with the current strategy and we see this from you all the time as well as many other people here is that if you insist that someone must definitively prove something before they are allowed to use it in an argument then people tend to keep demanding more and more proof and then just dismiss the proof as it comes in for one reason or another and say it's not sufficiently proof worthy and when arguments that way. And that's not okay. So generally the way it works is that if somebody makes a claim that you're going to refute it then the burden is on you to make a case as to why it's not true using at least as high or higher evidence as was provided which might take the form of logic or reason. For example if you were to claim that the sun rose in the west this morning I might refute it with the logical argument of the sun rises in the east, it always rises in the east, there's no reason to believe it's different today and that would be a reasonable argument Now the ball would be back in your court to explain why something exceptional happened or provide evidence or the like etc. Trying to win an argument by demanding cites or Focusing on minutiae there's more childish than it is practical. If you genuinely think somebody is wrong about something dig up the evidence to make that case one way or another and present it There’s plenty of self-affirming narration in that wall of text, but none of it makes burden‑shift any less absurd — asking people to disprove claims made with no evidence is always ridiculous. 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 23 hours ago, User said: Yet another lie from you. Another useless accusation. 23 hours ago, User said: I don’t call anyone and everyone that merely disagrees with me a lair. We'll believe that when you don't reflexively accuse people of lying at the first sign of disagreement. It doesn't stop being true because you don't like it being said. 23 hours ago, User said: Once again, I presented to you the particulars of this discussion and why the term was used, and you ignore that, and want to make dishonest hasty generalizations instead. After thousands of compulsive accusations of dishonesty, you don’t get to complain that people no longer treat them as carefully reasoned objections. That's the consequence of your childish behavior, and you now have to live with it. 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 11 minutes ago, Moonbox said: 23 hours ago, User said: Another useless accusation. More useful than yours. I explained why to support it. 12 minutes ago, Moonbox said: We'll believe that when you don't reflexively accuse people of lying at the first sign of disagreement. It doesn't stop being true because you don't like it being said. I don’t do that. More lies. 13 minutes ago, Moonbox said: After thousands of compulsive accusations of dishonesty, you don’t get to complain that people no longer treat them as carefully reasoned objections. That's the consequence of your childish behavior, and you now have to live with it. It is thoughtful, articulate, and accurate when I do so. If you and other choose to respond as cowards and stomp around like petulant children, that is on you. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: There’s plenty of self-affirming narration in that wall of text, but none of it makes burden‑shift any less absurd — asking people to disprove claims made with no evidence is always ridiculous. Well the concept requires more than a grade 3 level of comprehension so you may struggle with it. But if you were paying close attention what it's really doing is that in various layers to the level of proof and also sharing and not switching the burden. And that is 100% logical and reasonable If you make a claim you have to offer some level of support to back it up even if it's minor, if I wish to refute it I have to offer at least the same level or higher. And that escalates until it comes to a point where somebody can't offer any more proof. And that prevents the sea lion and you're so fond of where you ask for the same information again and again and again. That is an exceptionally reasonable and logical way to have a conversation and of course you don't like it because it removes one of your favorite cheesy debate tactics. But it is the way things have evolved and it is very natural as far as how humans think and I'm sorry that you are now forced to have an intelligent conversation or none at all rather than simply demanding sites every 2 seconds in place of logic or reason 1 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Moonbox Posted March 9 Report Posted March 9 On 3/6/2026 at 5:55 PM, CdnFox said: Well the concept requires more than a grade 3 level of comprehension so you may struggle with it. But if you were paying close attention what it's really doing is that in various layers to the level of proof and also sharing and not switching the burden. And that is 100% logical and reasonable If you make a claim you have to offer some level of support to back it up even if it's minor, if I wish to refute it I have to offer at least the same level or higher. And that escalates until it comes to a point where somebody can't offer any more proof. And that prevents the sea lion and you're so fond of where you ask for the same information again and again and again. That is an exceptionally reasonable and logiIcal way to have a conversation and of course you don't like it because it removes one of your favorite cheesy debate tactics. But it is the way things have evolved and it is very natural as far as how humans think and I'm sorry that you are now forced to have an intelligent conversation or none at all rather than simply demanding sites every 2 seconds in place of logic or reason A pile of insults and a longwinded interpretive storyline don't magically upgrade an unsupported claim. Calling these messes "layers of proof" and pretending they substitute for evidence is nonsense. Nobody is required to match your effort and your walls of text when the bar for dismissal on a no-evidence claim is already zero. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
CdnFox Posted March 9 Report Posted March 9 33 minutes ago, Moonbox said: A pile of insults and a longwinded interpretive storyline don't magically upgrade an unsupported claim. Who claimed it did? Oh, were you just trying to distract from the fact you were wrong again? Silly boy 34 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Calling these messes "layers of proof" and pretending they substitute for evidence is nonsense. No, it's how the human mind works actually and it's entirely practical. If you believed NOTHING unless PROVEN (hi robo!) you couldn't get through your day. You can't think like that and actually function. Its similar to legal evidence. Only certain specific crimes require 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. The legal system could not function that way. So for other circumstances we have different levels such as "clear and convincing", which means the evidence is pretty strong (but could be wrong), and "proponderance of the evidence", or "balance of probability" in Canada, which is "more likely one way than the other". So you're entirely wrong. Having a strict and universally applied metric for evidence for something like a debate club as value because somebody is trying to win or lose in a debate club and you need to have rules the same as you do with any other sport. But the purpose of those debate clubs is generally not to actually discuss and flush out ideas, it's to win the debate I realize that for you your goal is to try and use some sort of technical method to win where you can't with logic of reason. That's why this whole concept upsets you But the entire world functions the way that I said it does and while that may be inconvenient for you you're just going to have to learn how to make logical arguments again. Sorry for the inconvenience Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Moonbox Posted March 9 Report Posted March 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Who claimed it did? Oh, were you just trying to distract from the fact you were wrong again? Silly boy No, it's how the human mind works actually and it's entirely practical. If you believed NOTHING unless PROVEN (hi robo!) you couldn't get through your day. You can't think like that and actually function. Its similar to legal evidence. Only certain specific crimes require 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. The legal system could not function that way. So for other circumstances we have different levels such as "clear and convincing", which means the evidence is pretty strong (but could be wrong), and "proponderance of the evidence", or "balance of probability" in Canada, which is "more likely one way than the other". So you're entirely wrong. Having a strict and universally applied metric for evidence for something like a debate club as value because somebody is trying to win or lose in a debate club and you need to have rules the same as you do with any other sport. But the purpose of those debate clubs is generally not to actually discuss and flush out ideas, it's to win the debate I realize that for you your goal is to try and use some sort of technical method to win where you can't with logic of reason. That's why this whole concept upsets you But the entire world functions the way that I said it does and while that may be inconvenient for you you're just going to have to learn how to make logical arguments again. Sorry for the inconvenience Nobody's asking for absolute proof of anything. I'm just highlighting how ridiculous it is to demand people disprove claims for which no evidence has been offered. Disproving something requires challenging and evaluating evidence, and you've provided none. Your self-impressing monologues aren't a substitute. Edited March 9 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
CdnFox Posted March 9 Report Posted March 9 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: Nobody's asking for absolute proof of anything. Sure you are. 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: I'm just highlighting how ridiculous it is to demand people disprove claims for which no evidence has been offered. it isn't 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: Disproving something requires challenging and evaluating evidence, and you've provided none. I thought you weren't looking for absolute proof of anything, can't disprove without proof. And i'm not actually disproving or proving anything, i explained how things work to you now and you're first reaction rather than intelligent discourse was.... Cite? LOLOL Thanks for proving my point. Sorry kid, the world doesn't work like that. 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: Your self-impressing monologues aren't a substitute. You mean rational debate and intelligent discussion. Actually it is . Sorry to break it to you. You want to be able to get out of arguments you can't win simply b y yelling CITE! followed by INVALID SOURCE!! over and over again on repeat. Nope. And demanding that makes you look like an ignorant tard. If you think he's wrong, then make your case and provide your own evidence. like this: debate club rules not appropriate for online discussions - Google Search Traditional debate club rules, which are designed for structured, synchronous, and judged in-person events, are often inappropriate or impractical for online discussions, social media, and forums. Online environments are generally asynchronous, lack a neutral moderator, and are designed for rapid, informal engagement rather than formal argumentation. Requiring Immediate, In-Depth Citations Why it fails: While citing sources is important, demanding instant, formatted, high-quality, academic-level citations for every minor point discourages casual participation and slows down the conversational nature of social media. The Problem: It shifts the focus from the exchange of ideas to a "source battle," often ignoring that online, many opinions are personal, not academic. LOL either way you lose kiddo So ... time to learn to make an intelligent argument. I've rarely seen you do that but i'm sure if you try hard and maybe watch a youtube video or three or something you can make a reasonable stab at it. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.