Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

"I still think your analogy is not comparable. " Well, It is. It is a perfect analogy, That of which you have yet to dispute. That kinda proves my point. "you are transferring this to the defense of the statement "lack of evidence shows that the object doesn't exist. "" No that is not what I said. I'm basically saying that a lack of evidence for something means it's safe to assume it doesn't exist. Or in the case of the elephant, It's safe to assume that I lied about it being in my house. What is so hard to understand about that? "Now it boils down to why would I not believe you if you said any elephant was there. Well, It all depends on what type of evidence I would expect:" Exactly! Now you're getting it! You would expect evidence, And without said evidence, You'd think I was lying. Very good. But why would you think I was lying? Just because there was no evidence, Doesn't PROVE that I lied, Right? Of course not, However you can ASSUME that I was lying, Because the evidence points to that. Meaning what, Exactly? That means that absence of evidence. . . . IS FUKKING EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE! Duh. . . " Would I expect to find feathers strewn about? Would I expect to find raccoon tracks? No. Would I expect there to be deer scat? There is a specific type of evidence that I would expect from an elephant based on my experience with elephants. " Yes, Of course, And I listed those pieces of evidence in my very first argument before you even accepted the debate. And of course, If all those pieces of evidence are missing, You would assume I was lying, Which proves my point. "The questions then become, What type of evidence are you looking for? How can you be so sure you are looking for the right evidence? For all I know, You could be looking for the wrong type of evidence. " Well that's easy. You'd look for knocked over objects, Maybe some pictures fallen off the wall, Perhaps some elephant tracks in the lawn etc. It's not like it takes a genius to detect these things. They are rather obvious and I even stated them in my opening argument. "The fact that you don't see the evidence ("There is no evidence! ") could very well be explained by the following: (a) you are looking for the wrong evidence (b) you don"t know for sure what evidence to expect. (c) you simply don't see the evidence right in front of you. " That isn't what this is about! This debate isn't about whether the evidence is there or not, It's about the specific argument (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) being a flawed argument. That's what this is about. It's in the title, It's in my opening argument, And literally every one of my points. "So alas. My argument still stands. Until you can rule out (a), (b), (c) you can"t say for certainty absence of evidence is evidence of absence. " HA! No. Incorrect. Go back and look at my first argument, That completely disproves the nonsense you are saying. "You say a lot of words on Proof vs Evidence. Is it sufficient to say then that you agree that evidence doesn"t necessarily PROVE? That's what your rebuttal suggest. " DING DING DING! That's correct! Good job! Evidence is not proof! You did it! You just made my points stronger! "You start off by saying "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and then you go onto make claims that supposedly support it. " When was that exactly? When did I make claims that counter my arguments? Go find them, And show me. You are a liar. " But the first claim you make is the same statement "absence of evidence is the only way to indicate something doesn"t exist. " Geez. Isn"t that what you are trying to show? " I am forced to repeat my points many different ways because people like you are unable to understand simple things. So yeah, I repeated my point, And I'll keep doing it until you are finally able to understand. " That game doesn"t work, Chief. " Listen guy, You haven't even adequately responded to over half my points. Once you do that, Then, And only then, Can you tell me how to debate. "Go ahead and curse and hurl insults. It"s the white flag of someone who can"t defend their own arguments. " Well you have yet you refute my most basic arguments so really I think THAT is a white flag of some who can't defend their own arguments. I get easily frustrated when I deal with people like you so yeah, Obviously I'm going to call you a dumbass. It's an accurate description. " Usually insults and ridicule are the resort (sometimes the last resort, Often the first resort) of someone who can"t defend their position lol. " Dude, You aren't winning this lol. You have been getting verbally annihilated every round by actual valid points. The amount of denial going through that head of yours is staggering. It's actually kinda of depressing when you think about it. Refute my most basic points and then you can make a claim like that. "I've shown that your argument, And your defense of it, Isn"t solid " Is that really you think happened? That's so sad. You've done nothing of the sort. " the only thing you have left is to try and ridicule and intimidate and insult. " It seems like that is the only language your dumbass understands so yeah, That's what it comes to sometimes. " So when one doesn't see this evidence it's reasonable to deduce Unicorns don't exist. " That proves my point. All the lack of evidence makes you think unicorns do not exist. So I will say it again: absence of evidence is in fact, Evidence of absence. Otherwise you would believe in unicorns because why not. "With God it's a different story. What evidence are you expecting to see? " Any evidence. Literally anything at this point. But that isn't what this debate is about. You still don't get that for some reason. "Your argument is this: absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence of X. " Correct. Again, That doesn't mean that absence of evidence PROVES that something doesn't exist, We can just assume it doesn't, Otherwise there would be some trace of evidence. " The questions for you now become : a) What sort of evidence are you expecting of X? Why-- what basis do you have for this? b) how will you know evidence of X when you see it? c) how do you know for sure that are simply not seeing the evidence in front of you (a rewording of (b) above? " That all depends on what X is. And again, That has nothing, Not one bit, To do with whether or not a lack of evidence can be used to infer that something doesn't exist. It's not part of this debate, You see. Look at the title. That's what this debate is about, Nothing else. Not "Let's show evidence for something". "Substitute X with elephant, Fly, Cow, Etc, And the questions are easy to answer. Substitute God for X and I would challenge you how are you able to answer a-c above. " But this isn't about that. I've said it many times. If you'd like to debate about the existence of god, I'm 100% down for that. But that is not this debate. Please address my actual points. "You've painted yourself into a corner chief, On your first argument, No less. " Make a point, Please. I'm getting tired of this. " Lol. I usually don't see people paint themselves into a corner until well into the 3rd or 4th round, But you did it in your opening statement. " Quote me. You can't do it because your just making stuff up. " You must have a paintbrush in both hands lol. I'd put one of them down if I were you. " Dude what are you even talking about? Please make an actual point. What is this gibberish? "Like an angry dog cornered, Your only response is to angrily hurl insults. Lol. " No. You would know that isn't true if you would spend a second reading my arguments. Please do that and don't respond until you've actually addressed my points rather than just dismissing them without even truly reading and understanding them.