Dirrell had a 3 months recovery time for his brain injury

C'mon, don't act like an alergic to intelligence.
Admit that you were wrong ffs. Nobody will laugh at you.

The affirmation here is that Dirrell had a brain injury. Some people don't think this is true, therefore the equivalent, that Dirrell was facking it.

I hope you are mixing this with criminal law matter, where in court the prosecution has the burden of proving the accused's guilt. But even in this case, the prosecution makes the affirmative assumption that the prosecuted is guilty. The one that is accused of being guilty is the one that denies it and is asking for proof. Therefore, the burden of proof sits on the prosecution shoulders as they are the one that made a claim.

In our case only one party claims something.
The claim here is that Dirrell got badly injured. If the evidence is not solid enough for some to think the statment is true then they dismiss that particular idea and assume that the intial state, the one present before the claimed event, is the true one. In this case people simply say that Dirrell did NOT got badly injured. That equivalets with saying Dirrell was facking it in our case becasue Dirrell was acting like something serious happened although we've already reached the conclusion that nothing like that happened.

It's the same as debating religion.
Theists claim there is a God. Atheist claim that they do not believe such thing exists. They dismiss the idea. The burden of proof is on the Theist part. Ex: If I claim Unicorns are real then I am the one who has to provide evidence, not those that dismiss my idea.

Hope you understand all of the above because if you do that I am sure you know you were wrong, even if you won't admit it in public.

 

I can demonstrate that Dirrell was faking.

1) According to the dictionary, "fake" means: "anything made to appear otherwise than it actualy is".

Now lets see:

2) Becasue there is no proof I do not believe what Dirrell and his fans claim regarding his brain injury
3) Dirrell was holding his head, cried and complained after he got hit. He also said later that he was diagnosed with a form of brain injury

So, inferencing proposition no. 1, 2, 3 it's safe to conclude that Dirrell was faking.

The only statements that need proof are statements no 1, and 3. Please let me know if you really need it.

 

Can you prove that Unicorns aren't real?

You must understand that it's your job to prove the injury was real, not mine do prove the fact that I dismiss that idea.

 

To be or not to be?