This is not pedantry pal!
The stand-alone premiss of an argument is self-asserting. And it is either more or less plausible than its negation.
To call a given premiss "special pleading" is facile.
Is it special pleading to assert that Socrates was a man?
Is it special pleading to assert that all men are mortal?
If that were the case, then the NEGATION of any arguments premise would equally be 'special' pleading.
not following you there...
Oh well. Sorry. I feel for you.
Hope you have a happy life.
maybe you don't mean "any" argument's negation.
No. I said exactly what I meant.
If a premiss asserts that 'all things which come into existence have a cause', then the negation of that premiss would itself be a premiss.
'not all things come into existence'
'nothing ever comes into existence'
'things come into existence in a totally uncaused manner'
If you say that KCA premisses amount to special pleading then you must also regard the negation of those premisses as special pleading.
God exists - special pleading.
God does not exist - special pleading