Reply #164: Please don't cite me to support this craziness.

[distantearlywarning]

The confusion you are causing here arises from combining two different arguments, one of which (yours) is trying to prove a negative.

The article the OP posts states (in a nutshell):

Argument 1: I can prove that there IS a correlation between increased rates of porn usage (variable X) and decreases in violence against women (variable Y). Assuming you believe the author, this is an statement arguing that there is positively a relationship between variable X and variable Y.

Your argument is different:

Argument 2: Until you can prove that no relationship exists between increased rates of porn usage (variable X) and increases in violence against women (let's call this variable Z for clarity), you can assume one does exist. This is a statement demanding that your opponent prove a null (no) relationship between variable X and variable Z. This is a logical fallacy, and not even technically possible to do because you would have to conduct an infinite number of studies to make sure you never ever found one with the indicated results.

As for this statement: "You are doing something similar. You are saying that until someone can show that a relationship between variable X and variable Y DOES exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in fact it does NOT exist." - What your opponent has asked you to do here is provide positive proof of your assertion of a relationship between porn and increased violence, which is completely legitimate and not fallacious. This demand is in fact what scientists do every day, in a sense - demand positive proof of phenomena from one another. Although none of us ever really believe that we 100% "prove" anything, we don't ever assert that a relationship between variable X and variable Y exists until someone does show that it exists.