'circularity argument' of the burden of proof, in the sense of 'tesi, ragionamento'.

or 'circularity fallacy' (see text/link below)

CIRCULARITY FALLACY
Some claim that a lack of proof would indeed be consistent with their ideology. This may be true, but the number of possible ideologies of this sort is infinite, and few proponents of such ideologies give competing ideologies of the same evidential class the same epistemological status.

Once criticism has been that, demanding that any side be burdened with more evidence than the other is in itself *a fallacy*. The Elvis example above shows the weakness of this position. This argument suggests that the burden is empirically and logically unfair. Which side the burden should be placed on is arbitrary and debatable even before its placed, it is claimed. Which side is the more skeptical, doubtful, and which side is the most reasonable are oftentimes a matter of opinion and is presupposed by the side that places the initial burden, who places the burden on their opposition - this is claimed to be a bias, having a loose connection with **begging the question or circularity fallacy**. In the act of placing the burden, the truth is presupposed; a bias is built into the question and its empirical approach. It is claimed that a nonpartisan approach to truth should place equal parts burden on both sides. Presuming that any one side is more reasonable posits its correctness beforehand, and is the result of nothing more than a deluded confidence in ones preexisting belief-to-an-end. For the skeptic, it is claimed, which side deserves the Burden should be a matter to be debated and proved in its own right. The strength of this argument can be assessed by considering this notion in the context of the Elvis example above.