Pit Bulls Were Never "Nanny Dogs". Never. It's A Myth

[MichelKS]

115. Weaker than you think

You presume that people regard the SBT as 'the nanny dog'; if they didn't, I'd wonder why you bothered writing your post. That said, the 'nanny dog' reputation is common knowledge. Generally we give common knowledge the benefit of the doubt and presume its veracity until proven otherwise. For example, you may never have been to Antarctica, but you believe it exists: a person who claimed that it doesn't exist would have the onus to prove so. In your case, you ask for a 'preponderance' of evidence, despite that you have the onus to provide that level of evidence for your claim against common knowledge. Moreover, you don't provide evidence for your claim, you provide a lack of evidence against it. Can you find proof that I'm not Bill Gates? You see, you've approached your claim backward. You want to prove that the nickname is a 'myth'. But if you have to prove that, then the nickname itself must not be a myth, people must actually call the SBT 'the nanny dog', otherwise you would have nothing to prove. So then, you must mean that the nickname is inaccurate. If that's what you mean, then you ought to cite sources that evidence that claim, instead of making arguments that depend on what they refute. By approaching your argument that way you can use positive evidence to make a real claim.

Good luck. You'll need it.