The Instigator
AlexanderOc
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Burden Of Proof Is An Important Component Of Debates

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 9 votes the winner is...
AlexanderOc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,814 times Debate No: 59998
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (72)
Votes (9)

 

AlexanderOc

Pro

First round is acceptance.
This debate is meant to be educational and demonstrate why BoP is normally allocated to one person.
It is my responsibility to support the resolution, therefore I have the full burden.

Aerogant

Con

BOP was never an important component to anyone except whom have never had what it takes to win any conflict to begin with. Philosophers did not need to give people a BOP, they said what they said based on what they observed and analyze through decades of their time - what they said was either agreed upon or disagreed upon, there wasn't any BOP involved. Over that period of time, philosophy gave birth to what we know today as Science. Science is not based on BOP - it's based on high-level observation, analysis and demonstration. Philosophy has always had a harder time with people, because it's not as easily demonstrated, because it requires the receiver to not be stupid and receptive towards what they are saying, throughout the context it bares truly. Science works with an already existing system of function and reaction, so it's easier to show people that what you're saying is true when you can recreate what you have observed and analyzed - other things, like human psyche, dream analogies, parables - everything that is felt, instead of seen, are impossible to demonstrate, which is wise men take this reality as they would seeing a flash of lightning - it's all relative, you can't teach everyone everything, so either lose your mind and have some fun, or close yourself off from the people to live in a remote area. The human mind is split up in two way, things that can be seen - things that can't be felt. I have no imagination that I can see, I can only feel shapes, essence and colors. I can't see, because seeing is not the only component - BOP is based on seeing - evidence is based on seeing - demonstation, acceptance, realization are all about feeling.
Debate Round No. 1
AlexanderOc

Pro

Ignoring the the fact that Con just forfeited by making an argument in an acceptance round, let's get on with this debate.

I. Cross-Examination

" BOP was never an important component to anyone except whom have never had what it takes to win any conflict to begin with."

A debate isn't a conflict. It's an exchange of information with the purpose of providing enough objective information to convince voters.

"BOP is based on seeing - evidence is based on seeing - demonstation, acceptance, realization are all about feeling."

BoP is not based on seeing, it's based on proof. The burden of proof. It's based on the need of somebody to provide facts and evidence for a claim they make. It's what requires somebody to support what they say, rather than just expect everyone to believe it.
Also, acceptance and feeling have nothing to do with debating. Debating is objective. Inserting subjective feeling into it is pointless as it does no good for your case. Nobody cares about what a debater feels, they only care about what he can show.

Those are the only relevant points Con made. Everything else he talks about is going on about philosophy and science. Neither of which are debating.

II. Construct

Burden of Proof isn't something that is given out, it is acquired by making a claim. The nature of the claim will usually determine whether the burden is shared or not.

For example, if I were to make the claim " The FSM is the one true god." Then it would be my responsibility to prove that. However, since there are multiple gods, then I could say that BoP is shared because my opponent could provide an example of a god that is the actual true god.
But if I make the claim "FSM exists" Then I cannot give BoP to Con. That would bring up the Negative-Proof Fallacy. By that I mean that I would be asking Con to falsify an unfalsifiable premise. Which is by definition impossible. So the only thing he can do is negate my arguments which I provide to support my burden.

The sole purpose of the burden, as I stated in my cross is to force somebody to back up a claim. Without it, claims would just have to be accepted without reason. Which makes debating pointless.


Aerogant

Con

An exchange of information to convince others - sorry, but politicians use BOP all the time; look where it got them - now, look where it got us; our country; a place that is in shambles; that was fought for by our men, our women and our children.

I don't have to say anything else. I already said it all. You are just resorting to circular-logic.
Debate Round No. 2
AlexanderOc

Pro

My oppoent has not retorted any of my arguments nor rebutted my refutations. He claims I use circular logic without providing example.

Politics and debating are two seperate matters.
Aerogant

Con

What arguments? All I see is false associations.
Debate Round No. 3
AlexanderOc

Pro

It's a shame to see this debate go to waste. I was hoping to instill reason, but I guess not everyone is willing to follow the guidlines to make a debate successful.

Please provide examples of fase associations of make an agument.
Aerogant

Con

You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

You resort to red herrings, because you keep trying to shoot holes through my ontological ship, which ends up killing the fish in this cosmic sea.You resort to circular-logic, hence you ignore that BOP's are used by politicians, not wise men.

Go --- yourself wannabe politician.
Debate Round No. 4
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Hey, nice ad hom post there. And how was that an accusation?
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Accusations cannot be answered. Go practice your politician impression elsewhere.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Hey Aerogant, I asked a question, you haven't answered it.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Sorry, but BoP's only work in a world where people are honest with themselves. Frankly this world is not one of them, so keep your monkey tactics to yourself. Leave the geniuses to their potential.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
First of all, you basically restated what I said. I never mentioned the purpose of debating was to inform. I said it was to exchange information, just like you said. To present facts and evidence, the information.

Second, the example of FSM being the one true God completely fits the shared BoP situation. In order for the opponent to provide an example of another God this is the actual true god, they have BoP to do so. Only if the opponent is attempting to only falsify the claims of FSM being the one true god will he not have BoP.

Again, BoP isn't accredited to someone, it is gained by making a claim. If the opponent makes a claim to counter my claim, they then gain BoP. If he isn't making a claim, then BoP rests on the instigator because he is the only one who has.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
This is weird because you are both wrong.

"A debate isn't a conflict. It's an exchange of information with the purpose of providing enough objective information to convince voters."

First, a debate is a form of conflict. Secondly a Debate is NOT an Explanation so it is not an exchange of information with the purpose to simply inform it is an objective proposition with the intention to convince using whatever information that supports a concept. This is important because debates, esp. in the case of politics, but throughout academia as well, are not built on "fully informing" but instead "utilizing proof and evidence". This is more important in Law though.

"For example, if I were to make the claim " The FSM is the one true god." Then it would be my responsibility to prove that. However, since there are multiple gods, then I could say that BoP is shared because my opponent could provide an example of a god that is the actual true god."

This is actually false as well. BoP is shared only if both agree to share it. That's about it and it's very rare in proper practice that it ends up being that way. The reason is because if you make a claim you can't "split" responsibility for the claim, that is that even if there is never a counterclaim if you don't back the claim the claim is considered irrelevant to the point.

In your example you would actually experience Refutation by Example which isn't "Shared" BoP at all. If they showed another deity then it undermines "One, True" as per the claim attributed to the FSM.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Aerogant, answer MY question, what do you gain in life by trolling and spamming an online debate?
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Aerogant, answer MY question, what do you gain in life by trolling and spamming an online debate?
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
Can this user be banned for being a doofus and a spammer?
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
Can this user be banned for being a doofus and a spammer?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was completely trolled.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor Conduct, Spamming, no communication or apology concerning the first-round acceptance mistake (that gave Con an advantage). No rebuttal of at least two thirds of the arguments given. Accusations instead of Arguments, I agree with Pro, that it's a shame, this debate never truly had a chance.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was stupid.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: no rfd necessary. clear vote for pro( will give rfd if asked)
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to rebut any of Pros claims. Poor conduct from Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never refuted Pro's points and then trolled the last round.
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and Con's behavior in round 4. Con also never made a real argument.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't show pro is wrong, he then fights in comments rather than debating in posts. he also used no sources. FIXED
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
AlexanderOcAerogantTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: FRA violation. Spamming.