I find this debate tiring.
Shifting the burden of proof to anyone other than the claimant can be countered with a myriad of hypotheticals that render the change in premise entirely moot (more often than not they go un-answered).
"If a man came up to you and said you were going to die of an incurable strain of bacteria unless you gave him $100 for a cure he knows will work and only he has got access to, would you accept him prima facie or demand evidence in order to take the claim seriously?"
This entire thread is a debate hiding behind pseudo-semantics that doesn't really add or take away from the base premise of the burden of proof.
Shifting the burden of proof to anyone other than the claimant can be countered with a myriad of hypotheticals that render the change in premise entirely moot (more often than not they go un-answered).
"If a man came up to you and said you were going to die of an incurable strain of bacteria unless you gave him $100 for a cure he knows will work and only he has got access to, would you accept him prima facie or demand evidence in order to take the claim seriously?"
This entire thread is a debate hiding behind pseudo-semantics that doesn't really add or take away from the base premise of the burden of proof.
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
