Potential avoiding the burden of proof
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Is it a way of avoiding the burden of proof to say that your claim is right but given the allegation that your opponent cant understand your justification,you are not gonna give one at all but the claim remains true nonetheless?
Comments on Question
Answers
3This is just a form of ad hominem; the compression skills of your interlocutor has no bearing on your own ability to justify your claims. What you are left with is a baseless assertion, in the form of a pig wearing lipstick.
This would simply be an unsupported claim . At the very least, an attempt should be made to provide the justification. If the justification is not understood by the other interlocutor, it might be fault of the person who explained it poorly, the person who did not understand a coherent explanation, or a combination of both.
You may choose not to give evidence/proof for your claim. However, this leaves your premise unsupported. You thus cannot claim to have supported or proven it.
Furthermore, if you decline to give supporting evidence you cannot then say "because you couldn't understand it." This is Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) on your part.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
1. It is not a way of avoiding the claim for why should anyone take your word just on the face of it? 2. The defendant must be able to understand what you are stating. 3.For you to insist your claim remains true may be false, an opinion, erroneous.