Comments by "Cupid Stunt" (@Cupid-Stunt) on "FBI refused Hunter Biden investigation: Whistleblowers" video.

  1.  @titang6173  Did the people in the video make their statements under oath? I know you like the legal stuff? Is this report published in writing? If it is I will believe all of it.
    3
  2. Don Jr?
    3
  3. More like him than don't
    3
  4.  @titang6173  Yes, this video is full of lies! and?
    2
  5.  @titang6173  The first claim was yours - the video was the example requested. Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to: Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl Modus tollens, a logical proof Proof of impossibility, mathematics Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
    2
  6.  @TriNguyen-ug1qv  Hitchens Razor.
    2
  7. Example?
    1
  8.  @titang6173  What have I said that you think I have to prove?
    1
  9.  @ThePhenom777  What are you talking about
    1
  10. Hitchens's razor - "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" The razor was created by and named after author and journalist Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011). It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. Hitchens used this phrase specifically in the context of refuting religious belief.
    1