Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Burden of proof in a debate has nothing to do with law. It's common sense. Why are you acting like this?
|
You made this claim in post #3 of this thread...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
That's a fairly overt and negative review of Ritalin. It's basically saying that Ritalin kills imagination.
That's pretty irresponsible.
|
Since the first claim in this thread was in fact made by you, Sir Ravel, I would argue that the burden of proof is on you at this point to prove that the intent of the comic was to paint a negative portrait of "pills". Since it's fairly overt, you should have no difficulty finding all the documentation you need to satisfy this burden of proof. In fact, I will put forward that the success of this entire thread lies with you backing up your initial claim. I don't see how we can proceed from here without it.
Then, in response to my query, you posted this:
Quote:
|
It's irresponsible to suggest that Ritalin kills imagination. Ritalin may not enjoy a good reputation with some of the less educated members of the general public, but the truth is it helps a lot of people.
|
I'll wait patiently while you provide documentation supporting your argument that suggesting Ritalin kills imagination is irresponsible. I'll also await your supporting documentation proving that Ritalin doesn't enjoy a good reputation with some of the less educated members of the general public, and I'll await your documentation supporting your claim that it helps a lot of people.
But first, I find it necessary that you define "a lot" and provide the documentation which states that your definition of "a lot" is supported by fact.
Please hurry.