This just isn't the place, nor is that the point of the assertion.
If you have a particular observation or set of data which contradicts what I'm saying maybe I can be more helpful.
I remember hearing once that 1948 was the first year in the United States without a lynching.
http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-120/Crime-Punish...
https://carolashby.com/crime-and-punishment-in-the-roman-emp...
The bar doesn't need to be high, but at least something needs to be offered as a counterpoint beyond someone telling an expert in their own field that they don't believe them. It helps to establish that the counterargument is made in good faith and requires effort on the part of the objector, indicating that they have some skin in the game.
You complain about substance-less objections, but so far you've just made a substance-less assertion. It's hypocritical.
2) No, that's NOT how the burden of proof works. The initial presumption is that the moving party is speaking truthfully, and objections are raised afterwards. If the objection has enough proof, then the initial party is under the burden to refute the defense. This is literally how our court systems work in civil cases.
The alternate assumption, that every element of every statement needs to be laid out for any statement to be found to be valuable means that every post here would start with a discussion of epistemology.
Edit: torstenvl's post is incorrect - in the initial stages of dispute resolution, in summary judgment and the phases where the claims are evaluated for importance (whether the originating document should be struck, etc.), the claims as drafted in a statement of claim are assumed to be true. This is why default judgment is accepted - because the pleas are accepted truthful. Pleas are also evaluated as if they are true in summary judgment and a number of other pre-trial levels. Once a defense is filed and objection is noted does the burden switch and the evidentiary examination begins. But that requires a defense, and a defense will be struck if it says nothing.
Fortunately, this procedure lines up fairly well with Bayesian inference and the principle of charity.
In any event, this meta discussion seems to have generated ill will and little understanding, so I'll let it rest where it lies.
Thanks for the spell-check! Common error of mine.
Sometimes the initial burden of proof is merely prima facie evidence, after which the burden shifts. For example, in some states, a defendant in a murder case need only make a prima facie case that the killing was done in self-defense, after which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense. But even in that case, the initial moving party bears the initial burden of proof.
Also, ABCLAW: it's spelled "judgment."
go!
There's a few weaknesses in his statements re: the Rule of Law, but that's outside of the scope of my critique.