system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How does the Burden of Proof work exactly? So confused.

Let's say somebody believes Pikachu exists. How would you tell that person Pikachu doesn't exist?

Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, positive or negative right?

So if, I where to say Pikachu doesn't exist, the burden of proof would lay on me right?

Here's the thing, If I say that Pikachu doesn't exist because there's no evidence wouldn't that be the appeal to ignorance fallacy?

How would you go about this? I'm so dumb and new to this lol. Thanks.
gpt
There aren’t general rules for the burden of proof.  If you’re in court or in a formal debate, then there are rules you can just look up. Out in the wide world, people have to just negotiate these things based on the context and what’s at stake.