The ClayTaurus
Senior Member
- Sep 19, 2005
- 7,062
- 333
That's an assumption. It renders your absolute statement irrelevant. You can't claim something as absolute and then apply qualifiers to your examples so they work.Then you simply have to render the example to be a house. If the person claimed the purchase of a house, there is no way you can lose that receipt or not know where it is.
No it doesn't! He could just not want to show it. You're applying the assumption of logical behaivor to your examples. Again, that renders your absolute as irrelevant.And we are in a situation where the person definately wants to show the proof. So, lack of proof proves he is lying.
Anything is a possibility! Besides; knowledge of the person wanting to provide proof would count as evidence. This is the problem with when you try and be cute on one end with semantics. You have to be cute on all ends with semantics, and your position falls apart.Giving the qualification of "knowing the person wants to provide proof" doesnt render it irrelevant, because it is a possibility,
No you haven't. You've yet to give one GOOD example of a LACK of evidence prooving there is no evidence. You've tried, and each has been shown to require qualifiers and/or actual evidence to be true.and I only need ONE EXAMPLE of it occuring to prove my posistion correct. But unfortunately for you guys, I have given many examples, as there are literally thousands upon thousands of examples.
But keep trying.