This is unrelated to the topic, but that’s not how logic works. The burden of proof is upon the person(s) making the positive claim. So either you say,
“Yes, there is genocide” (positive claim)
“No, there is no genocide,” (positive claim)
“I don’t know/don’t believe you.” (neutral claim)
So anyone in this post saying there isn’t genocide has a burden of proof to show why they believe it’s not occurring, because they are making a positive claim. It is not a logical fallacy to prove an opposing claim, and difficulty proving it doesn’t absolve anyone of that responsibility.
Likewise, anyone saying there is genocide occurring should provide evidence for that claim. Typically, the person making the first positive claim has the initial responsibility.
This is unrelated to the topic, but that’s not how logic works. The burden of proof is upon the person(s) making the positive claim. So either you say,
So anyone in this post saying there isn’t genocide has a burden of proof to show why they believe it’s not occurring, because they are making a positive claim. It is not a logical fallacy to prove an opposing claim, and difficulty proving it doesn’t absolve anyone of that responsibility.
Likewise, anyone saying there is genocide occurring should provide evidence for that claim. Typically, the person making the first positive claim has the initial responsibility.