Does the burden of proof fall on Believers?
Debate Rounds (3)
This is not a debate over the existence of gods, rather who should be asking for evidence and who should be providing.
Since PRO has not specified, for clarity, I suggest that "Burden of Proof," be defined as the responsibility to provide evidence held by the one making a positive claim. 
PRO has stated that in discussions regarding the "existence of something," believers carry the burden of proof. I am going to argue that this is not always the case, the non-believer can hold the burden of proof.
In any discussion, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Often, in theist/atheist debates this is the theist making the claim that a god exists. However, depending on the specific details of the discussion, the atheist may bear the burden partially or totally. Consider the following two statements:
1) A god exists.
2) No gods exist.
PRO has stated that "The burden of proof lies to those who believe, to prove that gods exists." It is clear that this holds up in statement 1, however, in statement 2 the non-believer carries the burden of proof for their positive claim.
I feel I have demonstrated my point; that the non-believer can hold the burden of proof. I look forward to PRO's next round.
Belief is a psychological state in which we place trust or confidence in the validity of something. By this definition "Non-belief" and the belief that something is true are different things.
Non-belief is not a claim, rather it is the rejection of a claim. Which can be due to whatever reason, whether it's lack of knowledge or lack of evidence.
The "Non-believer" you speak of in your argument is a believer in statement 2. Which is not the same thing as a non-believer in statement 1. Just as the rejection of statement 2 doesn't necessarily make you a believer in statement 1.
I will begin by saying that I agree with everything you said in your second round; I am going to take issue with the definition of a word: believer.
In religious discussions, the word "believer" is generally used to refer to an individual who believes in a god, or in a particular god. In fact, many dictionaries state religious belief as a secondary (sometimes primary) definition . As this debate was placed in the "Religion" category, and PRO did not offer a definition, I do not think it is unreasonable of me to utilize this definition. Furthermore, in the debate title, the word "believer" is capitalized, suggesting a defined group, such as those who share belief in a god. PRO himself stated in his first round arguments, "The burden of proof lies to those who believe, to prove that gods exists," further suggesting this definition.
I am confused by PRO's usage of a different definition in the second round of this debate. Regardless, I would be happy to argue the CON position using PRO's new definition.
Belief-"a psychological state in which we place trust or confidence in the validity of something."-PRO
A believer carries no Burden of Proof (BOP). I can believe in gods, fairies, celestial teapots and the absolute superiority of the Chicago Cubs, and carry no BOP. As I mentioned in the first round (and PRO did not object), a BOP is "held by the one making a positive claim." I can believe all of these things, and not own a BOP if I keep them to myself. I only carry the BOP when I move from being a believer, to being a claimant. A believer holds no BOP; a claimant carries the BOP.
Claimant-"a person making a claim" 
CON has made a great argument. I could attempt to keep up some kind of debate but honestly have nothing.
I do have a question, which will give you something to do for the last round. What's the fundamental difference between claiming and believing?
I would like to thank CON for this debate, it has been interesting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con's statement that the burden of proof falls to whoever makes the claim, not the belief of the claim. This was an interesting debate due to it's plain nature and impact it could have on other debates. I feel that this topic could be debated more thoroughly though.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.