(Continuation from yesterday)

On the other hand, if Nancy can show the profit of "EU stay",( and it is O.K. even if it not perfect),

the next time, the "burden of proof" moves to Tom, who should show the profit of "EU breakaway"

It is "counter proof".

It is said "change of burden of proof"

If Tom fails to do this "counter proof", Tom is going have the worst of this dispute.

-----

I think that in order to insist the claim of their own, some people are likely to act, for example, "making opposite people put the proofs", is normal.

However I am afraid that it is a clear

"unreasonable logic"

-----

For example,

The other day, I read a comment, that there was a meeting of foster parent(FP) of cats that rejects to join single men, and a person (maybe "male") became resentful.

In this case, the promoter seemed to reject joining a single man with reasons of luck of cat management (or abuse intention to meet a single woman (just my estimation, though)).

This man seemed to claim

"The promoter should show me the data that a single man lacks the management capability of cat management."

and,

to tell you the truth, I can understand his anger deeply, however,

in this case, it is reasonable that the man who get angry,

"should show the promoter the data that a single man doesn't lack the management capability of cat management."

and argue against the meeting policies(even if he really want to do it).

This is a simple and basic example of "burden of proof".

(To be continued)