You faggots will argue over anything

You faggots will argue over anything.
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Prove me wrong.
>protip you can't.

OK

Okay

Ok

Ok

Well......Um........OK

You see... okay....

>makes the claim that the burden of proof is on the on making the claim
>doesn't provide proof of claim
>what is self-defeat?

To prove a point you have to prove its true. It is your job to prove your claim.

FAGGOT!

Nigger

Okay, so prove the claim that "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim." Otherwise, you've defeated your own argument.

Douche

Generally, describes the standard that a party seeking toproveafactincourtmust satisfy to have thatfactlegally established. There are different standards in different circumstances. For example, incriminalcases, the burden ofprovingthedefendant’s guilt is on theprosecution, and they must establish thatfactbeyond areasonable doubt. Incivilcases, theplaintiffhas the burden ofprovinghiscaseby apreponderance of the evidence. A "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond areasonable doubt" are different standards, requiring different amounts ofproof.

Brony

I didn't ask you to describe what a burden of proof is or where it happens to be applied in some instances, I asked you to abide by your own standard by proving the claim that the claim that "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim."

faggots all of you

Thats a universial definition. How are cases won? By showing enough evidence to prove their claim is right.

Prove it

"Burden of proof" has a broader scope than how it's used in legal matters. You yourself have recognized that by making a claim about claims in the OP, not a claim about how courtrooms operate.

Still waiting for you to abide by your own standard and prove the claim that "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim."

Nice movimg the goal post. I provided evidence of burden of proof. Now you want another. I did provide it. I proved it

You provided evidence that there exists such a thing as burden of proof but that's not what I ever asked for.

I asked you to abide by your own standard and prove the claim that "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim." Otherwise, your argument is self-defeating.

I provided how its impletimentation. I provided how its true but you moved the goal post.

You provided an example of your claim being implemented, you didn't provide evidence (or proof) of the claim that "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim."

Let me help you. To do what you need to do in order to make your argument not self-defeating, you need to show why it would be impossible for it to not be the case that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. How would you go about showing this?