[mijoharas]

That's fair enough, and while I think we do have free speech I respect you saying that it's not obvious, and it's very possible I'd think the same on digging into the things you reference.

However, the main point I was making is that a refutation without evidence is a valid response to a statement made without evidence (which is what the comment you replied to was).

Having a higher burden of proof doesn't make sense to me.

[EDIT I just reread your comment, and noticed you said "you". I just wanted to point out it was someone else you were replying to before]

[impossiblefork]

My comment isn't complaining about a refutation without proof, but a refutation which claims something which if it were obvious would be shorter and simpler than the refutation.

An assertion without proof. You can deny it, but you can't respond with any essay about how the assertion is reprehensible.

[wrboyce]

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” – Hitchen’s Razor