This is where your fallacy begins, but not where it ends. Arguing against a position does not require arguing for anything else. When you make an unfalsifiable claim and then demand someone else disprove what was never proven to begin with, then Russell's Teapot most certainly does apply. You are correct in that it doesn't help "my position", but that was never anything other than a misrepresentation to begin with. I've already told you I'm not arguing for a "default" so why you keep insisting I did seems a bit curious.