By Which claim is a claim of fact is determined by the way the person makes the assertion.
The way I make the claim of fact is this: a person who claims to be in possession of a fact has the burden of proof to show that the claim is true.
This is not to say that I don’t believe in my claim and don’t have something to lose if it’s wrong. My point is that it is the burden of proof and not the person making the claim who has the burden of proof. If I am wrong on a claim, then my opponent has the burden of proof to show why. So if I say, “This person claims to be in possession of a fact has the burden of proof to show that the claim is true.
This is just how the law works. If someone claims to be in possession of a fact, it is the burden of proof to show otherwise. In a case like this, the argument is that the claim is true, so a person who claims to be in possession of a fact has the burden of proof to disprove the claim.
This is a very common situation where this is a fallacy. An argument is not a fact. There is no such thing as a fact that is not an argument. This is an oversimplification, but it’s the best I can do.
The fact that a person claims to be a fact is not a claim that they are in possession of that fact. It is an argument that they are in possession of that fact.
The argument is that the person is in possession of a claim that they are in possession of the fact. This is a very common way to argue that a person is in possession of a claim. A claim is a fact. A fact is an argument. A person is in possession of a claim if they are in possession of a fact.
I have a friend who has a very strong case that he is a fact. He also has a very strong case that he is a claim. Neither of these things is true. It is impossible for a person to ever be both a claim and a fact.
A claim can be a fact, but facts can be a claim too. It’s possible for a person to claim that they are in possession of a fact, but that they are not in possession of a claim. That’s impossible.
