If this argument had consequence, the burden of proof would not be on my position that non-living, non-biological entities like androids or computers generally can't be considered to have consciousness. The burden of proof would be on those who claim machines can be people and should be accorded the same rights and privileges as people.

Would you convict a human of assault for turning off an android? Would you convict a human of murder for destroying an android? If you ponder those questions, you see why the burden of proof is on you, not on me.