I think you are just arguing the toss here.

because you can't force your bias on me I must be arguing the toss. Classic ad hominem.

If you want people to support the pizzagate narrative you cant go around making claims without proof

Yes you can, that's the whole nature of a claim as opposed to a proven fact. To state the opposite is to say that all investigation must be completed with a positive outcome before any investigation can be allowed to start, which might suit those who wish to protect the pedos but it's obviously a nonsensical argument to prevent investigation.

I agree it is not a game, far from it, but it is certainly a contest and it is a contest that we can definitely lose.

no, we can win by finding evidence of pedophilia or we can draw even by failing to find evidence of pedophilia, the only way to lose is to go completely off the rails and take the law into your own hands.

You will become just a conspiracy nut that is easily dismissed.

You're rapidly becoming one with your denialism here, your insistence on privileging one side of the argument and your low level ad hominem. If you need to resort to fallacies to keep your side of the discussion above water then you probably already exhausted your position.

Just like with feminists who say you should listen and believe all women who accuse men of rape, even if there is circumstantial evidence against the accused you cannot outright call the accused a rapist unless there is solid evidence to support the claim.

You also cannot outright dismiss the accusation without doing a little investigating first. It's an interesting example you picked, allows me to throw a piece of history back at you. The Magna Carta used to say something to the effect of "No man shall be convicted upon the word of a woman except in the matter of the death of her husband", which is effectively a rapists charter, which is why that paragraph of Magna Carta was repealed many years ago. Innocent until proven guilty is a great standard for a court which has the power to administer punishment, but this is not a court of law, nobody is being sentenced based solely upon the outcome of a thread in this sub, and nobody ever will be, so we do not need such a strict standard to apply here.

when a paid shill comes on here to mock and demoralise investigators of pizzagate you shoulldn't make the outright claim that pizzagate is fact, even if it most likely is.

when a paid shill comes on a sub and tries to disrupt it that is a (weak) form of censorship. When someone comes on an anti-censorship platform and tries to censor it, in my book it is acceptable to do anything in response to that behaviour as long as the action taken in response is compliant with common law (and I am sneaky and experienced enough at this shit to gain contractual consent to actions which would otherwise be unlawful if I want to go that far). The fact that this is the pizzagate sub has no effect on my actions. I'm an interested bystander in all this pizzagate stuff, not a source or an investigator. I investigate people online as part of my job, don't want to do it as a hobby as well. I would respond to the censorious asshole no matter if he was disrupting /v/pizzagate or /v/whatever , and no matter if he was disrupting with "bawhaw you're all wrong and I'm going to make the same unsupported assertion every day for a year" or with adverts for offshore pharmacies.