[wolvesechoes]

> It for sure is but it's being ised to refute an affirmative assertion, not make it's own assertion.

To refute assertion you need to claim negation of that assertion, which is assertion in itself, as every negation can be rewritten to become affirmation, and vice versa.

[Maxatar]

This is not true. Producing a counter example to an assertion refutes the assertion.

While you can certainly argue that such a counter example entails the negation of the original assertion, that is not the same thing as claiming the negation of the assertion.

Putting forth an argument or demonstrating a counterexample is not the same as asserting all of the logical consequences of that argument.

[parineum]

Not really.

> All cats are white.

> All the cats I see are black.

The second statement doesn't actually imply that all cats are black but it does refute that all cats are white. It doesn't make it's own claim about all cats, it just adds an anecdote that doesn't conform to the first statement.

[bulbar]

The second statement implies the negation of the first though. So OP is correct assuming the term "claim" includes "implies".

However, the original argument regarding smoking bias is correct of course.

[wolvesechoes]

It negates original assertion. There is no difference between assertion and negation in logic.