(December 28, 2018 at 10:11 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:(December 28, 2018 at 9:45 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I never asserted that I would provide evidence. Additionally, I never offered anything as evidence. His statement assumes that I did or that it was insufficient.
To this point is is something that is on the table for consideration, but I'm not going to go in circles about something being evidence if it can't be viewed objectively. If not, there's no point to it, because it can simply be implied that the evidence wasn't acceptable. If it's defined ahead of time, then I have criteria for any evidence I would need to assert if I choose to.
That's nice, dear...but what logical fallacy can you identify, and what's wrong with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?
I already pointed it out. I didn't assert any evidence. Do you want the technical name for the fallacy?
No reason to attempt to provide something that isn't adequately defined. In this case "evidence", it would be a waste of time trying to pick and choose what might be considered adequate. If it's not objective, then I'm not interested. If someone else is, then target them for it.