The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

Being Instigator or Being Pro Doesn't Necessarily Give You the Burden of Proof

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,039 times Debate No: 12409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (13)

 

FREEDO

Pro

===INTRODUCTION===

I have seen several times people have claimed that simply being the Instigator is what lays the burden of proof upon someone.

Similarly, I have seen people claim that simply being Pro is what gives you the burden of proof.

I do not think either of these is the case, though the actual case involves one of them, among other factors.

Whoever chooses this debate will be defending one of these stances.

No tricky semantics will be allowed in this debate.

For the sake of this debate, actually being on the burden of proof, whoever it is that has the burden of proof in this very debate will be a non-issue and left unrecognized.

===DEFINITION===

Burden of Proof:

A obligation by a certain party to provide the necessary evidence and/or logic in support of their case. The opposing party doesn't need to present evidence, only dismiss evidence provided by the party with the burden of proof.
Danielle

Con

== INTRODUCTION ==

Many thanks to my opponent, Freedo, for debating this controversial topic with me. I will be taking the position that the INSTIGATOR (not necessarily Pro) has the burden of proof in a debate. As such, I hope my opponent is aware that he has the burden of proving that the instigator does not necessarily have the BOP (hehe)... good luck!

== DEFINITION OF BURDEN OF PROOF ==

Because neither myself nor my opponent want this debate to be sidetracked by semantics, he has agreed to use an alternate definition of BOP. It essentially says the same thing as what he posted in R1; however, while his noted that the contender need not present any evidence, in fact one might need to present evidence in order to contradict or negate the instigator's evidence. So, in short, here is the revised definition with minor changes:

Burden of Proof --> A obligation by a certain party to provide the necessary evidence and/or logic in support of their case. The opposing party is responsible for negating evidence provided by the party with the burden of proof.

Perhaps another clarification I should make is that there is a difference between the philosophical burden of proof (which I will explain in this debate; see Asymmetry in the Burden section) and the burden of proof on DDO. What I am assuming my opponent is speaking of in the resolution is in regards to the burden of proof on DDO or official debate type setting (since he said "Pro" and "instigator").

== EXAMPLE ==

I'll begin by citing an example of the typical way in which the BOP is unfairly shifted or explained here on DDO. For instance, if I am opposed to gay marriage and would like to debate the subject, then the appropriate thing to do would be to create a resolution that reads, "Gay marriage should not be legalized" and take the stance of PRO (and thus accept the burden of proof). However, because debates on DDO can begin with the instigator as CON, then I should not simply create a resolution that reads "Gay marriage," or "Gay marriage should be legalized," choose the Con stance, and then expect my opponent to make a case for me to negate. Instead, I as the instigator of the debate should make the initial argument and accept that there is *something I am trying to prove.* In that way, my opponent accepting the debate's only burden is to prove that I am wrong.

== CLARIFICATION ==

Suppose I was a relativist and created a debate called, "Moral relativism is the proper ethical standard " or something similar. In that debate, I have accepted the BOP - the obligation to provide the necessary evidence that relativism is the proper ethical standard. My opponent's position would be to negate all of the evidence that I have provided; in other words they must prove that I am wrong. They do *not* have the burden of proving another ethical standard as superior to relativism (such as objectivism, nihilism, etc.). All they have the burden of doing is negating my arguments and disproving or finding holes/problems with moral relativism. Of course, if my opponent wanted to state why nihilism or objectivism was BETTER than relativism, of course it would probably help their case and make their argument stronger. However, they do not have the BURDEN of anything other than arguing against what the instigator's claim was.

== WHY INSTIGATOR HAS BURDEN ==

The instigator has the burden quite simply because they are the ones making a statement (either for or against something). Again, if I was against gay marriage and created a debate called "Gay Marriage," and chose the CON side, then whether or not I chose to post first or second I would still have the burden. Starting a debate is someone making a claim even if they post second or as Con. If you make a claim, you have the burden.

== ASSYMETRY IN THE BURDEN OF PROOF ==

What I'm assuming Freedo's argument will be is that there are 2 main factors considered when taking into account who has the burden of proof, and those are:

* How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).

* Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative) [1].

While that is entirely correct in a philosophical debate, that standard does not apply to all debates or debates here on DDO. For instance, if we are debating whether or not gay marriage should exist, then technically the one who is PRO should have the burden considering they are making a positive claim that goes against the norm. However, if we consider the morality debate I mentioned earlier ("Moral relativism is the proper ethical standard") then there is no 'norm' to go by since it is still a widely debated subject. In that case, clearly the one who is making such a statement (the instigator) has the burden.

== BURDEN OF PROOF FALLACIES ==

Even if the resolution had read, "Moral relativism" and the instigator chose CON, it would still be their burden to prove why relativism is false, because the instigator is the one making an assertion that it is false. We cannot simply ASSUME that it *is* false, because that would be committing a fallacy: the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. This fallacy -sometimes known as demanding negative proof fallacy - is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion [2]. Therefore, because automatically accepting something would be fallacious, it proves that the one who makes a claim is the one who must prove their claim. You cannot 'assume' a standard in every debate. You can in many debates (i.e. ones related to science, or that have been proven many times over, but not every debate; certainly not the kinds done here on DDO such as where evolution is still being disputed >.< ).

== CONCLUSION ==

In conclusion, it is widely accepted that while BOTH debaters have a burden in any given debate, there is an asymmetrical burden that gives one side of the argument the burden of proving a claim to be true or false. That burden must be the instigator of a debate - the one making the claim. Philosophers agree, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim" [3]. Also, "The burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded" [4].

Thanks again to my opponent and good luck :)

== REFERENCES ==

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
[3] Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370
[4] Truzzi, Marcello. 1987. On Pseudo-Skepticism. Zetetic Scholar: pp 3-4.
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

Many thanks to my very worthy opponent for accepting this debate.

== RESPONSES ==

"I'll begin by citing an example of the typical way in which the BOP is unfairly shifted or explained here on DDO. For instance, if I am opposed to gay marriage and would like to debate the subject, then the appropriate thing to do would be to create a resolution that reads, "Gay marriage should not be legalized" and take the stance of PRO (and thus accept the burden of proof). However, because debates on DDO can begin with the instigator as CON, then I should not simply create a resolution that reads "Gay marriage," or "Gay marriage should be legalized," choose the Con stance, and then expect my opponent to make a case for me to negate. Instead, I as the instigator of the debate should make the initial argument and accept that there is *something I am trying to prove.* In that way, my opponent accepting the debate's only burden is to prove that I am wrong."

>> My opponent is making the moralistic fallacy [1]. She says "should" and then derives what is from this. I agree that an instigator "should" not take the CON stance in order to divert the burden of proof(hypocritical of me, of course) but that doesn't mean they aren't actually diverting the burden of proof.

"Suppose I was a relativist and created a debate called, "Moral relativism is the proper ethical standard " or something similar. In that debate, I have accepted the BOP - the obligation to provide the necessary evidence that relativism is the proper ethical standard. My opponent's position would be to negate all of the evidence that I have provided; in other words they must prove that I am wrong. They do *not* have the burden of proving another ethical standard as superior to relativism (such as objectivism, nihilism, etc.). All they have the burden of doing is negating my arguments and disproving or finding holes/problems with moral relativism. Of course, if my opponent wanted to state why nihilism or objectivism was BETTER than relativism, of course it would probably help their case and make their argument stronger. However, they do not have the BURDEN of anything other than arguing against what the instigator's claim was."

>> The instigator is not always the one making the "claim", even though they should.

"The instigator has the burden quite simply because they are the ones making a statement (either for or against something). Again, if I was against gay marriage and created a debate called "Gay Marriage," and chose the CON side, then whether or not I chose to post first or second I would still have the burden. Starting a debate is someone making a claim even if they post second or as Con. If you make a claim, you have the burden."

>> Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does.

"What I'm assuming Freedo's argument will be is that there are 2 main factors considered when taking into account who has the burden of proof, and those are:

* How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).

* Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative) [1].

While that is entirely correct in a philosophical debate, that standard does not apply to all debates or debates here on DDO. For instance, if we are debating whether or not gay marriage should exist, then technically the one who is PRO should have the burden considering they are making a positive claim that goes against the norm. However, if we consider the morality debate I mentioned earlier ("Moral relativism is the proper ethical standard") then there is no 'norm' to go by since it is still a widely debated subject. In that case, clearly the one who is making such a statement (the instigator) has the burden."

>> Actually, conventional knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Whether the statement is positive or negative has everything to do with it.

"Even if the resolution had read, "Moral relativism" and the instigator chose CON, it would still be their burden to prove why relativism is false, because the instigator is the one making an assertion that it is false. We cannot simply ASSUME that it *is* false, because that would be committing a fallacy: the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. This fallacy -sometimes known as demanding negative proof fallacy - is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion [2]. Therefore, because automatically accepting something would be fallacious, it proves that the one who makes a claim is the one who must prove their claim. You cannot 'assume' a standard in every debate. You can in many debates (i.e. ones related to science, or that have been proven many times over, but not every debate; certainly not the kinds done here on DDO such as where evolution is still being disputed >.< )."

>> I find this argument quite funny because my own entire argument is based around the committing of this fallacy.
I turn her argument right back at her, but without the flaw which makes it reversed.
It all comes down to positive and negative statements.
To say that someone who is making a negative statement has the burden of proof(which would be the case if instigator picked CON) would be demanding proof for a negative, which commits the fallacy.

== ARGUMENT ==

The burden of proof lies upon the one making a positive assertion.

To say that something is true is a positive. (example: God exists)

To say that something is untrue is a negative. (example: God does not exist)

The title of the debate is either going to be a positive of negative statement.

To be PRO is to agree with the title.

To be CON is to disagree with the title.

If the title is positive and you are PRO then you agree with the positive statement.

If the title is negative and you are PRO then you agree with a negative statement.

If the title is positive and you are CON then you disagree with a positive statement.

If the title is negative and you are CON then you disagree with a negative statement.

If the title is positive and you are PRO then you do have the burden of proof.

If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof.

If the title is positive and you are CON then you do not have the burden of proof.

If the title is negative and you are CON then you do have the burden of proof.

== EXAMPLE ==

I do have one debate where there is a good reason I was the instigator and chose CON.

The title of the debate is "There are things more important than reason" [2].

The reason why I chose CON is because the title is a quote from my opponent, whom I directly challenged.

I wanted my opponent to defend their statement.

The contender obviously has the burden of proof here.

== SOURCES ==

1. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
2. http://www.debate.org...
Danielle

Con

|| Introduction ||

Thanks, Freedo, for the great debate so far. I hope you realize you're not fooling anybody by just c/p my arguments and then responding to them all with one sentence lol. Anyway thanks for the response and I look forward to a great final round! Hopefully I can clear up some stuff you mentioned regarding fallacies...

|| 1. Moralistic Fallacy ||

FREEDO ----> "My opponent is making the moralistic fallacy. She says 'should' and then derives what is from this."

It's important to note that I am not utilizing the moralistic fallacy. What the moralistic fallacy actually says is that because something is MORALLY wrong, it could not be a part of human nature. This is obviously false; just because everyone *ought* to be treated equally doesn't mean that everyone *is* treated equally. So, what the moralistic fallacy does is explain that just because things should be one way does not mean that it is one way.

Citing this fallacy is wrong here for two reasons. First, this fallacy intrinsically applies to ethics; it was a term coined specifically to deal with ethical guidelines [1]. Second, since we're debating who SHOULD have the burden of proof, then saying it *should* be one way but *isn't* one way (what the moralistic fallacy says) is only helping my case. Here I have been saying how things SHOULD be (who should have the burden) -- I'm not saying that things ARE that way (clearly they're not). In fact I've cited how DDO procedure is often wrong. Still, the instigator SHOULD have the burden. So in short, this fallacy/argument is entirely irrelevant.

FREEDO ----> "I agree that an instigator 'should' not take the CON stance in order to divert the burden of proof, but that doesn't mean they aren't actually diverting the burden of proof."

It seems my opponent is trying to say that just because someone accepts the CON stance doesn't mean they're intrinsically shifting the burden of proof. You'll notice that I never said that this is what the instigator as CON would do. Instead, I explained how even if the instigator chose the CON stance, and posted first and/or second, the instigator would still have the burden.

|| 2. Instigator Has Burden Because They're Making A Claim ||

FREEDO ----> "The instigator is not always the one making the 'claim,' even though they should."

There are 2 mistakes with this argument. First, my opponent acknowledges that the instigator SHOULD be making a claim (thus I'm assuming accept the burden) which completely negates his point regarding the moralistic fallacy (which I just explained). Second, the instigator is undoubtedly making a claim in every single scenario. For instance, if I am against gay marriage and I start the debate as CON with the resolution reading "Gay Marriage," then clearly I am making the claim that I am against gay marriage (or that I will be arguing gay marriage is wrong). In debate, the instigator is making a claim by creating a resolution and choosing a side to argue for or against that resolution. I thought I explained this in the last round; if my opponent still does not understand then I invite him to describe how exactly an instigator is not making a claim and I'll address his argument in the next round.

|| 3. Positive Statements ||

FREEDO ----> "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does... Whether the statement is positive or negative has everything to do with it."

This argument is false. One has the burden of proof whether they are making either a positive or negative claim; only the agnostic position requires no burden. "It is only when one has an opinion and argues this opinion publicly that the burden of proof takes effect... Once a party begins to form a belief or makes a claim, the burden of proof is initiated, and that burden is often not symmetrical to the opposing belief or claim" [2]. So, for example, if you start a debate saying "Sants Clause exists" which is a positive claim, then you have the burden, and if you start a debate saying "Santa Clause does not exist" which is a negative claim, you still have the burden.

Only agnostic claims have no burden, so Pro's assertion that only positive claims have the BOP is blatantly false. Here is a further explanation [3]. While it's true that positive claims generally require a larger burden, a negative claim mandates a burden, so a negative claim by the instigator especially puts a burden on them. As I said, both sides in any debate have a burden; however, the instigator is the one making a claim meaning they must defend that claim whether positive or negative.

|| 4. Argument From Ignorance Fallacy ||

FREEDO ----> "I find this argument quite funny because my own entire argument is based around the committing of this fallacy... It all comes down to positive and negative statements. To say that someone who is making a negative statement has the BOP would be demanding proof for a negative, which commits the fallacy."

In other words, suppose one instigated a debate called "God exists" but chooses the CON side. The instigator would be debating that God does not exist. Pro is under the misguided impression that expecting the instigator to argue against God commits the fallacy of demanding proof for a negative which is clearly false; once again this relies on his misguided presumption that only positive claims have a burden. My quotes and references have explained from a philosophical standpoint why every non-agnostic claim has a burden including the negative ones. Giving CON (the instigator) the burden in this debate does *NOT* commit the fallacy.

Once again, this fallacy asserts that a claim is true so long as it has not been refuted. In other words, we must accept that God exists simply because God has not been disproven. Clearly that is not what I am saying or advocating for at all. However, Freedo is advocating this exact fallacy when he asserts PRO automatically has the burden simply because God has not been proven (in other words by keeping the burden on the one making the positive claim that God exists). This fallacy can go both ways and applies to both positive and negative claims. Again, expecting the one making a claim to defend their position does NOT commit this fallacy. The fallacy is only committed when you expect something to be accepted as truth simply because it hasn't been disputed. In this example/analogy, that is not the case. Freedo is clearly manipulating the terms of this fallacy and/or not understanding how to apply it properly.

|| 5. Re: Argument ||

Here Freedo makes a bunch of assertions, such as "If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof," etc. which is wrong for all of the reasons I've highlighted thus far. This whole assumption operates under the basis that only positive claims require a BOP which is false. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise [4].

|| Conclusion ||

Only agnostic claims require no burden; if it's not an agnostic claim (positive or negative) then a burden exists. Agnostic claims don't instigate debates; they only contend them. So, the instigator always has a burden.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies In The Way of Words. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

== ON THE MORALISTIC FALLACY ==

"It's important to note that I am not utilizing the moralistic fallacy. What the moralistic fallacy actually says is that because something is MORALLY wrong, it could not be a part of human nature. This is obviously false; just because everyone *ought* to be treated equally doesn't mean that everyone *is* treated equally. So, what the moralistic fallacy does is explain that just because things should be one way does not mean that it is one way."

>> The Moralistic fallacy does not only apply to human nature. I provided a link for the definition of the moralistic fallacy. I'll post it here anyway.

Moralistic fallacy:

The moralistic fallacy is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy moves from descriptions of how things are to statements of how things ought to be, the moralistic fallacy does the reverse. The moralistic fallacy moves from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be. This, sadly, is a fallacy; sometimes things aren't as they ought to be.

My opponent did indeed commit the fallacy by stating this:

"then I should not simply create a resolution that reads 'Gay marriage,' or 'Gay marriage should be legalized,' choose the Con stance, and then expect my opponent to make a case for me to negate. Instead, I as the instigator of the debate should make the initial argument and accept that there is *something I am trying to prove.* In that way, my opponent accepting the debate's only burden is to prove that I am wrong."

>> What "should" be done is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is about how things ARE.

== ON THE INSTIGATOR ALWAYS MAKING A CLAIM ==

"the instigator is undoubtedly making a claim in every single scenario."

>> Oh really? Even the debate where I quoted my opponent and asked them to defend his own statement? Even in debates with titles that are demands asking the contender to prove something? I don't think so.

== ON POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASSERTIONS ==

"This argument is false. One has the burden of proof whether they are making either a positive or negative claim; only the agnostic position requires no burden."

>> Here, is my statement again: "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does"

Here is my observation; That specific statement which I made is correct and was not refuted by my opponents reply that I find quite silly to say the least. But in the larger context both my opponent and I were wrong.

I find it silly for two reasons.

Firstly, notice that in my statement which she declared to be wrong because "One has the burden of proof whether they are making either a positive or negative claim; only the agnostic position requires no burden." I never stated anything about the negative or agnostic stance. I stated that making a positive claim produces a burden of proof, which she actually confirms in her supposed refutation.

Secondly, in my statement I declared that simply making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. My opponent said this is false, so making a statement does produce a burden of proof. She then goes on to say that an agnostic statement does not produce a burden of proof. A clear contradiction.

But I'll cut her some slack; outside of this statement I did declare that a negative claim produced no burden of proof, I was wrong. So I will make a reformed version of my primary argument to account for this.

== REFORMED ARGUMENT ==

There are three types of statements:

Positive (example: Elves exists)

Negative (example: Elves do not exist)

Agnostic. (example: Prove that Elves exists)

Positive statements produce a burden of proof.

Negative statements also produce a burden of proof.

Positive statements produce more of a burden of proof than negative statements.

Agnostic statements produce no burden of proof.

To say that someone generally has the burden of proof within a debate is to say they have the most burden of proof.

If the title is positive and you are PRO then you do have the burden of proof.

If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof.

If the title is agnostic and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof.

If the title is positive and you are CON then you do not have the burden of proof.

If the title is negative and you are CON then you do have the burden of proof.

If the title is agnostic and you are CON then you do have the burden of proof.

== 2ND ARGUMENT ==

Awhaw! But there is a twist!

You see there are exceptions within this generality.

Even if you somehow dismiss my 1st argument there is no escaping this one.

Rule of Contract:

Whenever a contender accepts a debate they are accepting to play by the rules put forth by the Instigator in the first round.

I have seen many times where the Instigator chooses to custom making the rules regarding burden of proof.

Most of the times when this happens the instigator is deciding for both debaters to have an equal amount of burden of proof or likewise ignore that it even exists.

IN-FACT! This very debate is a perfect example. See first round.

This is legitimate because both debaters accept it.

Philosophical burden of proof may not work this way but DDO burden of proof obviously does (as my opponent stated is the kind we are talking about).

There is no denying this.

VOTE PRO
Danielle

Con

|| 1. Moralistic Fallacy ||

Unfortunately, my opponent did not understand my criticism of him using the moralistic fallacy here. While it's true that the moralistic fallacy does not ONLY apply to morality, you'll notice that I never claimed that it did. What it does is move from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be. For instance, suppose you don't look both ways before crossing a one-way street. Your reasoning is that the cars shouldn't be going the wrong way down a one-way street, and thus there is no incentive to look both ways. This would be committing the moralistic fallacy: assuming things are a certain way because that's the way they ought to be. As such, citing this fallacy actually helps *my* case - which I pointed out in the last round.

Pro writes, "What 'should' be done is irrelevant... This debate is about how things ARE." So, if Pro says that I am committing this fallacy - assuming that things are one way because they ought to be one way - then my opponent just admitted that the instigator *ought* to have the BOP. By saying they ought to have the BOP, but that's not always the reality, then essentially what that translates to is that when the instigator does *not* have the BOP (such as when it's agreed before-hand that they wouldn't), it's really a violation of who SHOULD have the BOP, and that's the instigator.

Pro concedes that the instigator then DOES have the burden of proof. While he mentions that the burden may be shifted by mutual agreement from the debaters, it still proves that the instigator has the burden until they prove that the contender accepts the shift of the burden. Either way the instigator in making the initial claim still has a burden. Claiming "my opponent has the BOP" is still an instigator making an initial claim :)

|| 2. Instigator Has Burden Because They're Making A Claim ||

Upon my statement that the instigator is always making a claim, Pro writes, "Oh really? Even the debate where I quoted my opponent and asked them to defend his own statement? Even in debates with titles that are demands asking the contender to prove something? I don't think so." Whether my opponent thinks so or not, my point stands. For instance, let's look at his first scenario: a debate where he quotes an opponent and asks them to defend the statement. By quoting the opponent and taking a stance on the quote (in which the instigator would presumably be Con), they are making the claim that they are against (or will be debating against) what the contender said in the quote. This is obvious.

Second scenario: debates with titles that are demands asking the contender to prove something. I'm assuming, for instance, something like "My opponent must prove that pigs fly." The instigator would probably choose Pro. In that case, my reasoning from Section 1 applies -- that even if the burden is agreed mutually to be shifted (i.e. giving the contender the higher burden), the instigator was still making a claim with that resolution -- that they didn't agree with Con and would be arguing against Con's notion -- so until it's proven (agreed) that the contender accepts the burden, then the instigator still has the initial burden. Like I said, the burden can be shifted, but that does not take away from the fact that initially the instigator in making a claim assumes the BOP.

Seems silly, but clearly my opponent is resorting to this kind of mutual shift -- I'm quite sure it's because I've proven via logic and a bunch of scholar's quotes that the one making an initial claim (instigator) accepts the burden in every philosophical debate (unless, as I said, it was an agnostic claim). However, I want to be clear on this in that while the burden CAN be shifted, the instigator *initially* has it. And moreover, you'll find Pro committing his own cited fallacy with these scenarios! If the moralistic fallacy states that you assume things are one way because they ought to be one way, then consider Pro's example where he suggested a resolution that specifically gives the contender the burden. For instance, "My opponent must prove that pigs fly." With that statement, you'd assume that the instigator's opponent has the BOP, right? But that's assuming that something is one way just because it ought to be one way... does it not?

|| 3. Positive and Negative Assertions ||

Freedo insists, "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does." Of course this completely ignores my argument that both positive AND negative claims have a burden! As I said, the only claims with no burden are agnostic claims. Freedo refuses to accept this reality. He says, "Here is my observation; That specific statement which I made is correct and was not refuted by my opponents reply that I find quite silly to say the least. But in the larger context both my opponent and I were wrong." How does this make any sense whatsoever? Quite clearly I negated his statement that only positive statements require a burden in proving that this was false -- negative claims require proof too. In fact, I cited numerous scholarly sources proving that I was right. My opponent merely said I never responded when quite obviously and blatantly I did, making this a lie and bad conduct in my opinion. Additionally, it's completely false that we're both wrong -- he is wrong, and I am right.

Pro writes, "I never stated anything about the negative or agnostic stance. I stated that making a positive claim produces a burden of proof, which she actually confirms in her supposed refutation." THIS IS ANOTHER LIE. In Round 2, Freedo said - and I quote verbatim - "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does." In other words, he specifically states that only making positive assertions require a BOP. Any non-positive assertion is either agnostic or negative, proving that Pro did indeed mistakenly assert something FALSE. Now he's trying to claim he never made that false statement, but quite clearly he did.

For more proof that Freedo is clearly lying, here are 2 more examples from R2 where he literally clarifies his (false) assertion that only positive statements have a BOP -- "Whether the statement is positive or negative has everything to do with it... If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof." I rest my case.

Another mistake from Pro -- He says, "My opponent says making a statement does produce a burden of proof... She then goes on to say that an agnostic statement does not produce a burden of proof. A clear contradiction." As I specified and clarified in the last round (in the CONCLUSION section - which Pro blatantly ignored) verbatim I wrote: agnostic claims don't instigate debates - they only contend them. So, the instigator always has a burden. You'll notice that my opponent never responded to this, and instead conveniently points out a "contradiction" that is not a contradiction at all, AND that of which I've already explained.

|| 4. Argument From Ignorance Fallacy ||

Pro concedes that I never committed this fallacy, which I explained in the last round.

|| 5. Re: Argument ||

Pro writes, "If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof." This directly contradicts what he said a few sentences earlier - "Negative statements also produce a burden of proof." This is one contradiction of many from his final "argument." And, while he uses bad conduct by bringing up a new argument in the last round, his "rule of conduct" argument actually fails. Why? It's already been entirely refuted by me in Section 2. Even if the contender accepts the burden (his supposed "twist") then it doesn't take away from the instigator's initial burden. I've explained this at length in this round.

Thanks, Pro, for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I dunno about that - I think it's pretty obvious that the pro side is simply correct... With a conjunct resolution like this one, Pro wins if he can demonstrate that being the instigator OR being pro does not *necessarily* give you the BoP.

I'd give the example of Con instigating an obviously status-quo topic (tree-dwelling fairies exist).
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
I'll contact Juggle and ask if I can change my vote if it means that much to you.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
I still think it's complete and utter bullshiit that I lost this debate.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
"While that is entirely correct in a philosophical debate, that standard does not apply to all debates or debates here on DDO. For instance, if we are debating whether or not gay marriage should exist, then technically the one who is PRO should have the burden considering they are making a positive claim that goes against the norm. However, if we consider the morality debate I mentioned earlier ("Moral relativism is the proper ethical standard") then there is no 'norm' (or status quo) to go by since it is still a widely debated subject. In that case, clearly the one who is making such a statement (the instigator) has the burden." ------- STRAIGHT FROM ROUND 1, SO STFU. Everything you say is complete bullsh!t just like your embarrasing Texas example. GO AWAY.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Mongeese - wtf are you talking about? What status quo argument? Go away. I addressed the status quo thing in R1 very clearly.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Hold on, Lwerd, you were supposed to be arguing against the resolution, so you couldn't possibly use the status quo argument.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Yeah, that's what I said.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
For debates with a resolution like this where the resolution is not a common knowledge issue or there is a hypothetical involved, the burden falls on whoever is making the claim. In this debate, burden rests on Pro.

It's difficult to come up with a general rule that describes all situations, but in general, the instigator usually has the burden of proof unless they are introducing an obvious statement as con - i.e. "Tree-dwelling fairies exist."
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Here's some examples for how claims can be understood. Let's say that the "status quo" is the common knowledge interpretation of a resolution - i.e. if the resolution is "Unicorns exist" we interpret the status quo to be that unicorns do not exist because there is no evidence for them.

Let's examine a couple resolutions. The letter in (parentheses) is Pro/Con - who the instigator is.

1) Unicorns exist (P).
2) Unicorns exist (C) -> [Becomes: Unicorns do not exist].
3) God does not exist (P).
4) God does not exist (C) -> [Becomes: God exists].

So for existential claims, the burden MUST be on the person seeking to change the status quo. If it were not, then there would be no way to meet the burden. Consider if the burden were on someone to prove that unicorns do not exist. The only evidence for this would be the LACK of evidence FOR the claim. In short, burden falls on the changer of the status quo because if not, there is no evidence that can be brought forth for the other side...
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'The burden of proof is always on whoever wants to change the status quo'

Justification?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by LevChernyi 6 years ago
LevChernyi
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ChuckHenryII 6 years ago
ChuckHenryII
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 6 years ago
ArtTheWino
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
FREEDODanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40