He’s missing some punctuation, but the point is that the burden of proof ought to be on the people making the claim instead of as it commonly happens, that people state something wild and then spend their time arguing against the proofs against it. The secondary point is that people who do this are already blind to this, so they are basing their arguments on something that only they believe, and strongly believe without proof.

It makes discussion futile, because the people believing in random stuff are asking for evidence against something untrue that is based on something untrue which is based on something untrue. It’s 2 or more steps away from logic.

I don’t know if that made any more sense, so let’s make an allegory with math.

Let’s say a person wrongly believes that 2=3. This belief is unknown for anyone besides themselves. Based on this, they conclude that 2x3=4 and state that openly. So a sane person would argue that 2x3=6. The first person then claimss that 6 is wrong, and the second person will attempt to prove it logically. It does not matter how much proof the sane person provides of the 6 because the first person does not understand that from their belief. The 2=3 belief is never discussed, only the 6.