There is no justification for the burden of proof

There is no justification for the burden of proof.

Prove me wrong.

their no justification for anything, despise the numerous attempts by any rationalists.

Prove it

Prove that it's necessary for me to prove it

quality thread

Prove proof proves proof

This thread.

There is a justification for the burden of proof.

Prove me wrong.

Isn't justification a legal term?

justification/dʒʌstJfJˈkeJʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of showing something to be right or reasonable.
2. the action of declaring or making righteous in the sight of God.
3. the action or manner of justifying a line of type or piece of text.

Cat monkey.
Your argument is solid, but not as cute and, therefore, invalid.

>burden of proof
I fucking hate that fallacy. Why do I have to prove my claims? They are true unles proven wrong.

Only existence and nonexistence matters.

Formally, it's not a fallacy

Prove I must prove proof proves proof

Prove 1=1
Somebody please. The more I think about it, the more I can't define 'proof'

Prove this isn't best girl
Logical tip: you can't

It's a rule for people that think they can establish the truth through arguing.

Here is a hand, here is another hand.

That's two hands.

Axiom of Extensionality

Define hands.
Define two.

Look dummy lmao!!!

look!!!

2 = {0,1}

Münchhausen trilemma. You have three ways of trying to prove something: through infinite regress, through circular logic or through axioms. None of these are particularly satisfying, although axioms let you construct functional systems.

kek'd heartily, good job

Well nobody is going to argue with that now are they?

5 = {0,1,2,3,4}
4 = {0,1,2,3}

5 = {0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3} ???