Reader TTS

Yes, the unacknowledged factor that makes this circular is that asking me to prove a negative is fallacious and absurd but you refuse to accept that. We are only going round because of

fallacy. The burden of evidence is on the one bringing the claim—objectors have no obligation to positively disprove a claim that lacks evidence. And I actually did post the independent fact

check showing that this source has a reputation for fake news among other deceptive tactics, the burden is on the claimant to answer these questions of unreliability and strengthen its

premises. At this point you can either post corroborating evidence from a credible source (you said you came across many articles, so it should be a very simple way to defeat my criticism),

or you can continue to create a circular argument, or alternatively concede this crucial point. Claimaint: “Space monsters exist.” Objector: “Prove that space monsters exist.” Claimaint:

“Prove they don’t exist!” I think it’s clear how absurd that line of argumentation is. You say it is a low blow to point out that logical fallacies existed before this back-and-forth, yet

you constantly deflect when I point out your fallacies by quoting specific parts of your argument using evidence to show how they are fallacies; it is almost as if you think I made them up

on the spot to make you look bad, and that there is no merit in arguing without fallacy. It’s almost like you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that maybe you are actually committing

fallacies and making false arguments as a result. And the fact that you refuse to answer my criticisms, or instead compound them with a further fallacy adds credibility to the idea that you

are trying to backwards rationalize a false point. I have clear built-in goalposts that you can use to defeat my criticisms logically, assuming it is possible to do so.