en.m.wikipedia.org
^See this
Oh god no, please do not try and go into this shit and think you are being intelligent...
For an easy to understand example, I make the claim that Gawain does not need to swing his sword to use his NP. I mention a fgo cutscene, where every character is static, as evidence. Someone else posts the video with a timestamp saying "This did not mention he doesn't need to swing his sword to use his NP"
In this scenario, I am wrong. Because I am claiming my proposition is true (no swing needed for NP) because no-one has presented evidence that it is. That is a claim which needs evidence. If someone else refers to the scene and it doesn't have evidence, that claim is wrong.
An attempt to try and make his point about the fallacy, he ends up basically tries and fails to make everyone but himself(and the other Overlord fanboys) look like a hypocritical idiot...
1. We have evidence that Excalibur Galatine requires Gawain to have his sword as his Noble Phantasm IS Excalibur Galatine itself... the weapon he has.
2. Gawain is NOT an FGO-exclusive character and came from Fate/Extra which we do in fact see him using Excalibur Galatine... with his sword:
3. Gawain has had MULTIPLE appearances in different games entirely which ALSO have him use Excalibur Galatine... with his sword.
Thus, the argument he tries to pull literally doesn't work at all in any fashion... but it DOES highlight the fact that he literally does the same shit with Overlord despite no one showing any evidence of ANYTHING that has Ainz somehow working through MR, not only somehow affect them in their element, but somehow Ainz not being made a smear on the wall either or his Time Stop being on the level of an Authority to straight up affect a Servant.
EDIT: To put it into extremely simple terms, in trying to point out the argument of appealing to ignorance, it only shows how much he and the other Overlord fanboys(and hell SB in general) use the argument itself to try and bolster their arguments rather than do any research meanwhile using it to cover their own asses on any lies or faults on them.
Thus it's a shitty attempt to shift the Burden of Proof which unironically, falls into this:
en.wikipedia.org
There's a reason why I constantly state this because it's the thing that people in the VS. Community need to understand first and foremost:
"The Absence of Evidence does not equal The Evidence of Absence"(Yes, I do keep using The Boondocks version of it for the funny but it IS still true).