Alakabamm said:
My point was that yes, there is no "devolves into x" for this argument, because an initial negative claim still requires evidence for it if it is to be taken into consideration. Yes, a negative can be forced into the ground by a strong positive, but there
can (not always will) be that possibility of an entirely disprovable negative which someone can attempt to fall back on (i.e. Prove that space unicorns don't live at the edge of the universe), weak as it may be. I simply implied that burden of proof can fall on a negative in a debate if said negative is the initial or an important claim to the argument. If said negative cannot have proof and is merely a "you cannot prove me wrong" sort of thing, of course it's likely to not even be a factor in the argument to anyone who actually cares.
1.
2. While I still don't agree on the whole minimal amount being sucked in (mainly due to the fact that there are various reasons as to why Justice's head being sucked up does not necessarily have to mean
only that portion has been sucked up), I can very much see where you're coming from with the "Stands are BS" thing, mainly due to the looser explanation a lot of them receive in the series. I don't believe many options are considerably more likely than Star Platinum inhaling the fog, but you are certainly right in that there are many possible options due to the sparse information, and that does indeed complicate things.
No, but "it all" is direct reference to the fog, which covers the entire town, and is connected to the outside fog via the completely broken window, in the background. Enya is also notably not collapsed in the bottom right panel. She is on her knees mentioning that she's in pain, which obviously even part of your body being violently compressed would do. She does not collapse from lack of air until after the mention of Star Platinum sucking "it all" (the fog) in, and in the immediate next panel, said fog which Star Platinum was stated to have sucked in is entirely gone.
I want to stress again that I never said "prove the opposite", nor suggested that you needed to do so. I suggested that if you make a claim about something in the scene, evidence should be provided, even if it is "negative"/in opposition to something.