You made the claim, so it's up to you to prove that. (Might I suggest David Icke and Alex Jones since they talk about lizard people quite often and are so highly regarded...)
As for being skeptical, you're free to think Trump is whatever you believe him to be. It doesn't mean you're right though, but can any of us concretely prove whether he is or isn't human without a DNA test? If not, then what's the point in arguing it?
Consistency doesn't = truth. If that were true, then it would be easy to argue that climate science is false. Global cooling to global warming to climate change? Where's the consistency? Must be false then right? Or was more time necessary, and more data, and more analysis of that data, etc? Even then, does everyone believe in man made climate change now?
You're free to try and change people's mind, but they are also free to disagree, even if you think their thought process is incorrect. It doesn't hurt to step back and reevaluate your own thought process sometimes, no matter who you are, or how certain you are.
I do agree we all need a healthy degree of skepticism. Some here seem to show skepticism as times, while others seem overly confident quite often. Being cocksure is a recipe for disaster eventually.
Wow, flew over your head. It seems you need to be spoon-fed as well and also I just want to make this clear. I was parodying KLAMarine's bad faith debating style and flawed use of skepticism to point out that not everything is spelled out for you and you have to use rational deductive reasoning to get to conclusions at times.
In any event, it wasn't meant to be taken too seriously the way you did.
Who's head? Your so called 'parody' isn't an apples to apples comparison.
You're making a claim and then expecting people to prove you wrong. You think someone should simply be able to say they think they saw you rape someone and now you have to prove you didn't, beyond reasonable doubt, or go to jail?
KLA was responding to the initial claim, and the individual making the claim, or the others backing it up, weren't putting up sufficient evidence with direct ties to prove their claim. KLA's evidence wasn't exactly sufficient either, but they were giving the benefit of the doubt, as well as agreeing the claim could possibly be the truth, yet the others weren't doing so, until later on somewhat, once it was pointed out they weren't being consistent, in which they seemed to think consistency was so important.
When both sides have insufficient evidence to prove their point, your verdict is guilty? This very likely means you go to jail btw.
As with the original claim, you haven't proven your's either. Is that what you're really trying to point out?