I think though that in this case the person who needs to try harder is the one who originated the claim, not the person trying to dispute it, given that the person who made the claim originally didn't provide any evidence.
It's a well-known thought process that has even been covered by places such as the Washington Post (among others, to be clear)... which I took the 30 seconds just now to find for you -- even though I think it is extreme frustrating when people whine about proactive citations for this kind of thing as it simply isn't a fair way to have a conversation -- and then when I switched back here to write this I realized that "the person who made the claim" in fact said it as well.
Like, this is a well-known enough thought process that the person I responded to had already felt a need to dig into this themselves before, only they dug into it wrong as a misinterpretation of the claim. Where I'd say we currently stand is thereby "seems like a credible hypothesis worthy of discussion". If anything, I can see a more useful way to ding the original claim here -- based on my knowledge of this ongoing discussion -- but it isn't to whine about how they should have already needed to provide evidence in their initial post, and nor certainly is it "I found a bunch of counter examples".
But even that seems like a non-sequitur as the interesting thing here clearly wasn't an attempt to sideline us into a discussion about police but was instead just an attempt to make a wider discussion about annoying usage of passive voice and other language shenanigans to avoid directly admitting blame or control -- which is an entirely fair point and I will strongly claim is a fully valid thing to be discussing and criticizing of this statement by Nintendo -- and while I could see reasonably pushing back on it in that light in a ton of ways, again: that set doesn't include whining about citations during a discussion and likely doesn't include defenses of oblique rebuttals :(.
Like, this is a well-known enough thought process that the person I responded to had already felt a need to dig into this themselves before, only they dug into it wrong as a misinterpretation of the claim. Where I'd say we currently stand is thereby "seems like a credible hypothesis worthy of discussion". If anything, I can see a more useful way to ding the original claim here -- based on my knowledge of this ongoing discussion -- but it isn't to whine about how they should have already needed to provide evidence in their initial post, and nor certainly is it "I found a bunch of counter examples".
But even that seems like a non-sequitur as the interesting thing here clearly wasn't an attempt to sideline us into a discussion about police but was instead just an attempt to make a wider discussion about annoying usage of passive voice and other language shenanigans to avoid directly admitting blame or control -- which is an entirely fair point and I will strongly claim is a fully valid thing to be discussing and criticizing of this statement by Nintendo -- and while I could see reasonably pushing back on it in that light in a ton of ways, again: that set doesn't include whining about citations during a discussion and likely doesn't include defenses of oblique rebuttals :(.