I've recently come across a person (Leftist) who, as often happens, refuses to find evidence for any of their claims. This time specifically it was the 'Ben Shapiro is a racist, bigot, sexist, transphobe' claim in which they made several false statements and refused to provide sources or evidence for their claims and instead said it was 'your' (the person speaking to them at the time) responsibility to deal with your 'laziness'.
What is the best or most logically sound argument you guys have heard for discussing that the burden of proof falls to the one making th claim not the beholder? This is simply to sharpen my own understanding of this so I'm better prepared for it in the future.
Someone who relies on 'muh racism/bigot/transphobe...' isn't arguing in good faith anyway. If there is no audience just ridicule them and if there is an audience just go on the attack and show some contradictions in their beliefs. Even hedonists who don't care about the truth still can't stand being contradicted.
I simply use Hitchen's razor on them "That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
As such, if a person doesn't understand, or just refuses to understand, the very basic premises of rational discourse... that as you say the burden of proof is with the claiment not the listener... then simply use fire with fire and since they won't provide evidence to prove their case, you simply dismiss their case without evidence.
Them: Shapiro is a XYZ.
You: Show me the evidence (or less confrontational: what leads you to beleive that?)
Them: I don't have to show you if you are too lazy to find out.
You: Then as you don't have anything to show me, I have nothing to see. Good day.
Thing is you aren't here to teach debate, or logic, or rationality. You are here to talk about Ben (or whatever). As such, you'd be doing "double duty" trying to teach someone to be a better conversationalist or debater or more rational and, honestly, it never works. As such, find ways to not waste your time with people like that. Hitchen's razor gives you a perfectly acceptable way to walk away from the conversation while leaving the other person with the clear message that it's not you who are lazy for not finding the evidnece but them for not providing it.
So, let me get this straight: you are asking for a logical response to someone who has proven conclusively that logic plays no role in their thought processes. Is that it?
Can you figure out the flaw in your approach? Go ahead, take your time. I’ll wait.