I dislike when they try to make me and others feel bad because I don't agree with their idea of argument and logic.
Right here is the flaw in your education, upbringing, background, culture, whatever it is: it is not
our idea of argument or logic. It is not a case of equal preference of one thing over an other. The foundation of a rigorous argument was laid several hundred years ago and forms the background of millions on man-hours of work and thought. Those who use it have more to assert over those who don't. You can throw up whatever YouTube video you like or movie scene which 'explains it' but you have nothing convincing to say unless you accept the rules of the 'game'.
My simple argument is "if you say the video is fake, then you have to prove it".
No that's wrong.
The qualm is that In a rational debate, you have to start with the premise that they are presenting in good faith.
No that's wrong again. Even a premise (or a hypothesis) you've arrived at yourself must be treated with scepticism. It's just the way the mind of a homo sapiens flows. Having evolved in a cluttered environment it's a known predisposition which is therefore compensated for in the above mentioned workflow. It's just unfortunately that that shape of mind is vulnerable to this.
In general (UFOs, man-made climate change etc. notwithstanding) your sin is that you form an idea and gather evidence to support that idea, dismissing that which does not accord with your idea. In other words, you let your 'theory', your 'premiss' or your 'feeling' filter all of the 'data' you find in a cart-before-the-horse stylee. It isn't unreasonable to come up with a hypothesis and then validate it against other known phenomena and knowledge
BUT! with the idea that you are trying to disprove it, not prove it.
Regardless of the haters and deniers.
I want to take issue with this point as it's teetering on the edge of an ad hominem argument which is disrespectful and you already criticised Captain Trips for doing the same. I am not a hater, nor have I forwarded my own thoughts on aliens. What I have been doing in this thread is showing you where your chain of reasoning is flawed and the implications of that.
Pertinent to this discussion:-
"Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan (circa 1995).
It is bordering on primitive pre-religion to not be able to tolerate ambiguity. In fact there is quite a lot of that around and it's still far better than making 5h!t up to fill in gaps.
