Balance of probabilities.  Your job is to make sure 100% of your sources contain the relevant information to support your position.  For the first 5 to fail this minimum standard, a pattern of irrelevance is established.  Wholesale disregard of the Gish Gallop/unforced chain of errors is understandable.  

Don’t cry about it, be better.  Learn from this and actually live up to your Burden of Proof next time. 

Balance. Probability. You want 100% from me, but your only willing to give a lesser amount because of balance of probability? How convenient. Equality? My job? Since when was I getting paid for this? My position seems to be in question, considering what I say, is not what I'm being told I said. If only I knew where I stood and what I meant... Ironic this is being brought up now, when this easily could have been applied much earlier to the other side of the conversation, but we'll turn a blind eye to that as well because why not. I also never agreed that the links were useless either, but because I didn't, you've assumed I'm admitting they are. A lot of assuming and excuses going on in this conversation.

Don't cry about it. LOL. That's funny. Now I definitely know you haven't a clue. Oh I've learned alright. Don't bother dealing with left because there is no 'winning'. You'll be hounded and spun until you can't see straight. Just be quiet and stay in the shadows like the rest of the righties, so when the media tells everyone a certain candidate is a shoo in, they are embarrassed and damaged beyond repair due to their 'superiority'. I can't be far from being accused of some sort of assault now, can I? Guilty until proven innocent. Democracy... at it's best.

1. That’s what the Burden of Proof requires. 100% of your sources being relevant in substantiating your claims.

2. Yup. It’s your job to provide verifiable evidence for your claims. Failure to do so undermines your position.

That’s just the minimum standard.

Stop crying about it.  

You have it backwards. Burden of proof is required by the accuser. The claim was made by the other individual that Muellers team was leak free. I did not agree with that. Instead of the other individual proving that, they ironically put it on me to prove my side. I offered my evidence anyway, which I mentioned isn't hard factual evidence, only indicators, and that was found to be unworthy of accepting apparently. Only then did they offer their proof, which happened to be an article about "theories" and "beliefs". That is not admissible as factual hard evidence either, and I do not find it worthy of their claim. Which would then mean neither of us have proven our case, and so we would be at a stalemate of sorts at the moment.

Why that somehow makes them just, and me a cry baby I don't know, because it doesn't make any sense. What I do know, is that I have been told my side needs to follow through this conversation at 100%, where as the other side can decide however much effort they want to apply. Somehow by doing less, and not knowing the entire story, the other side seems certain they are correct regardless.

You talk about doing things the right way and following the rules, yet you don't seem to do a very good job of it yourself.

But they WEREN'T INDICATORS.  Zero out of two that I checked, out of four total.  That is an inexcusable failure rate.  It's conceivable that the third and fourth ones were less worthless, but actually I guess it doesn't even matter:  if I'm not misreading your post you implied that you didn't intend for me to connect those links with the claim that there were "Plenty of reasons that sure make it look like there have been plenty of leaks from Muellers team".  Well, I'm sorry, but if you are just vomiting unconnected pieces of text at me then I see no reason to even consider it a conversation of any kind, much less one worth having.  Please let me know if that's the case so I can completely ignore you.

If you turn around and say that you WERE presenting evidence after all, then I reiterate that I didn't see the evidence in your links.  I explained why what I read failed to register as evidence of your claim with me, and at that point I consider the ball in your court as far as justifying why you consider it evidence and/or why my reasons for not considering it good evidence were faulty.  And if you say "well there was no evidence in the two you checked but there was evidence in the two you didn't", then please refer back to the earlier condemnation of "vomiting unconnected pieces of text at me". 

You made a claim and provided  5 verifiably irrelevant sources to substantiate your position, thus failing to live up to the minimum standard for your Burden of Proof.

Be better, and stop crying about it.

I believe you forgot that it was you that stated Mueller and his people were leaking information.  I asked you to prove it which you then provided 4 links and none of them showed any evidence at all to support your claim.  As I stated within my reply, it looked as if you just google "Mueller Leaks" found 4 but did not read any of them.  The burden of proof was always in your court to prove leaks came from his team and you provided garbage and spewed something about there is smoke ect.

If you do not have proof of your claims you can easily have said it's just an opinion and pretty much everyone would leave it at that or counter with proof of their own.  Either way, there isn't a stalemate because as you have shone there is nothing to link any leak so far to anyone from Mueller team.  If anything, it would be stupid as one of your articles suggested for his team to leak anything because he isn't looking to sway public opinion.  He is looking to find evidence, root out sources and prosecute.

The first claim below

The first claim requires burden of proof. If it can be factually proven beyond doubt, then the other party is required to prove their claim and why the initial claim is false.

This is what was said on the other side, "seems to be", and this is what I said in my reply, "make it look like".

Why does that make my claim any different than theirs? Both are worded in a way that make it clear that neither of us know for sure what we're claiming is definite. So then what it would come down to is who had hard factual evidence, which neither of us did seems to be the consensus. How in anyway can that make me 'wrong' and the other side 'right'?

Again, at best, this talking point was a draw, so quit throwing petty insults instead of factual resolutions. Strength in numbers cannot change truth and fact, only the perception of it.

Why are you still crying?  Take personal responsibility for your failures, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and be better.

Why are you still asking me if I'm still crying, when I never was to begin with after clearly explaining that to you multiple times? Are you looking to set a Guinness World Record or something? I'd suggest you find someone else to spout your nonsense but I can't help but assume I'm all that's left. I just hate to crush hopes and dreams.