The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Surrealism
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Down With BOP.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Surrealism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 60586
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Aerogant

Pro

BOP is unfair because it's trusting your opponent to not twist the context, allowing them to see what they only want to see to basically deny and move onto the next debate doing the same thing over. Here's a hint: BOP is the reason why religion vs. non-religion has never settled their dispute, where as non-religious and religious that kept it mutual and relative by only asking questions rather than wanting answers, have managed friendship or even more.

Arguing BOP in this today's era is like playing chess with a pigeon.

You simply cannot stack proof against ignorance - it does not work - ignorance is unlimited; BOP is limited. It's more intelligent to ask questions back and forth that way things remain mutual and relative. If you keep trying to argue proof with ignorance, the ignorance will easily swallow everything you have, while still convincing itself that it has the upper-hand after doing absolutely nothing. This is why you do not argue with a child or a monkey or a cat.

Rules: There is no acceptance round - the button that says "Accept" is you accepting the round. I give my argument first because I have no fear of somehow my opponent having an "edge" over me. People that worry about this are truly demonstrating how their foundation for debating wavers ever so easily.
Surrealism

Con

Burden of Proof is simply the idea that before a claim can be accepted, it must be proven or at least evidenced in some way.

In your entire argument, you do not even touch this.

You describe why arguing with a stubborn person does not work, but this has nothing to do with the Burden of Proof itself.

Additionally, the resolution is vague. Do you mean that people should not use Burden of Proof in arguments? If that's the case, then I claim that I have won this debate. I don't need to provide any reason for why I have won because I do not need to fulfill a burden of proof.

If you are saying that Burden of Proof as a concept itself is flawed, then you need to explain why this is so.

If you are saying that the Burden of Proof is useless, then you are wrong because we use the BOP as method for determining whether or not a claim has merit. It is not merely a tool in debates and arguments, but also a method by which scientists can put claims to the test.

In summary, my opponent's main argument does not actually touch upon the BOP, and also does not describe in any detail what his argument is trying to accomplish.
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

You can't teach old dogs new tricks - frankly, today's people are old sheep. BoP does not work in a world built on denial and delusions - period. People are too stupid to work with evidence today. They can't even tell that their rulers are destroying their homeland for fark's sake.

And your whole "I don't understand it, therefore you're wrong" argument is why you are an idiot. You don't even comprehend the sole point of this, so why argue it? People are stupid, like you, which is why BoP is still being used, even though BoP requires people to use their brains, not their hearts. Any queen in the dark age can say "this man stole this piece of a bread", then the people will say "that's the BoP, he must be hanged!", and then the guy dies for what really was him taking the piece of bread so he could use it as an eraser for his art he was planning on trading for more bread... but the man died because of BoP and a whole crowd of people that say "we are the people", when they are nothing but animals that harbor the hate and inhumanity of the queen.
Surrealism

Con

I see then. Not content with using an ad hominem on me alone, it's apparently the entire world that must be insulted. Honestly, the ad hominems are so strong the only you aren't using them on is yourself. Am I truly supposed to believe that the entire world is stupid on the merit of your own claims about it? The answer is, of course, no.

I did not claim that I didn't understand your argument. I understood it, but what I did not understand was its purpose. Because I did not want to make a straw man argument, I asked for clarification, listing several options as to what the point of the argument might be. However, you misinterpreted this as a complete misunderstanding, lending a straw man argument to you instead. Additionally, you have not explained why the example I gave does not prove that if you were correct and we should not use the Burden of Proof, that I could simply claim "I have won this debate" and you would have no effective way of dealing with that claim.

However, if you are still not satisfied, I will prove using formal logic that the Burden of Proof is necessary.
(For all the logicians out there, I've done this proof by assuming that items in subderivations can be proven without using negation elimination, negation introduction, or disjunction elimination. This is to simulate the lack of Burden of Proof.)

First, we'll start a subderivation with the assumption of ~A.

||~A

Next, we'll reiterate it.

||~A
||----
||~A

Now we'll discharge the subderivation and start a new one with assumption A.

||~A
||----
||~A
|
||A

Reiterate again.

||~A
||----
||~A
|
||A
||----
||A

Now we'll discharge that subderivation. Since the burden of proof is not being used here, we can simply pull expressions out of subderivations as though they were in the main derivation. So we'll do that with the conclusions of both of our subderivations.

||~A
||----
||~A
|
||A
||----
||A
|A
|~A

A&~A is contradictory, so our premise - the lack of a burden of proof - has been falsified.

Also, your example has nothing to do with the burden of proof. The claim is "this man stole this piece of bread", but the queen in your example does nothing to prove this claim. If anything, your example just shows what happens when you accept things at a person's word and don't make them fulfill a burden of proof.

In summary, my opponent still has not clarified, has demonstrated a misunderstanding of what the burden of proof is, holds a self-contradictory position, has provided an irrelevant example, and still cannot deal with my own example.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

On my own merit? That's your merit. I have proof and ways to prove human stupidity. Our rulers were voted by our people. Wars would not exist in a world of intellects. Religions would not exist in a world of intellects. Need I say more? You're an idiot - and a threat to true human potential by thinking that today's population is doing anything remotely sane.

You do not understand it, hence your idiocy replaying itself already. How are you people so dense?

I can destroy your annoying ASCII spam by simply saying that the queen's punishment was based on the man stealing bread. There was proof the man stole the bread, so the punishment was carried out - the problem with the proof is that it's already immutable within its context. The queen did not say, "if the man stole the bread for selfish reasons, he would be punished", no she simply said "if the man stole the bread, he will be punished", as to completely ignore the details of his intentions, which is why burden of proof does not work in a world full of idiots that judge you based on emotions over evidence and choose death quicker than details.
Surrealism

Con

You've set up a false dichotomy. The world is not confined to being comprised entirely of smart people or of idiotic people. The mere fact that you think you can prove that everyone is stupid by showing that not everyone is smart is outrageous in its own rite. Ad hominem attacks do not prove anything.

Additionally, simple game theory demonstrates that even groups of rational people can still make decisions that lead to worse outcomes. Take the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. The dominant strategy for each player is to confess. No matter what the other player chooses, you ascertain a better outcome for yourself by confessing. Thus, any rational player would choose confess. Thus confessing is a Nash Equilibrium. However, what you will notice is that if each player chooses to confess, they are both worse off than if they had both chosen to lie. Thus, even if each player acts in their own rational self-interest, they can still end up with outcomes that are not ideal.

Clearly the fact the world is not perfect is not demonstrative of an absence of intellectuals, but rather a failure of proper communication, which has nothing to do with rationality.

Additionally, the "ASCII spam", as you so eloquently put it (It's actually called sentential logic, I felt that in this case predicate logic would be unnecessary) has absolutely nothing to do with your non-salient example. The proof I gave was a proof that the idea of a burden of proof exists by necessity, and that the idea of not having a burden of proof is simply incoherent.

The example that you gave simply has nothing to do with the burden of proof. You have no connections to it, no references, nothing you have said has even touched upon what the burden of proof is or what its functions are. Your example may be a little useful in a debate between functionalism and deontology, but in a debate about the burden of proof your example has no relevance.

Lastly, you have not addressed my claim that if the burden of proof is removed, I can simply claim that I have won this debate and that there is no need for me to provide evidence for that because I have no burden of proof. I say I have won and you have no means of showing that I haven't.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

Wait, are you saying that by calling someone an "idiot" it means they will be an idiot for the rest of their lives? My, my, you really are an idiot.

In life, confessing involves punishment no matter what, which discourages people from being honest and true to themselves. People in this world also take honesty for granted anyways, so being honest in this world is the hardest sacrifice. Most people that say they are honest really aren't remotely honest, when their honesty is personal, not practical.

The world is not perfect is all you have to call this cess pool we created call life? People believe everything they want to believe no matter how stupid it is. People are the reason why wars, hatred, religion and other signs of ignorance exist, like I don't know.... genius and intelligence suffering because all places in the world thrive off of idiocy? Hell, capitalism wouldn't even survive if it were in a world of intellects, rather than brain dead sheep that wonder why their wool is flammable.

Your example ignores the most important point in my argument: the queen kills a man through BOP because people see death (decision) before they see details (description). People act before they think - BOP encourages acting before thinking. BOP uses forms of evidence that are not objective, unbiased and strictly heavy on the universal side. It is strictly personal, hence evidence is not evidence to everyone - hence why atheists and theists have been at each other's throats for as long as man has existed. Anyone can say "evidence" make up nonsense, and get away with it, hence why you're here being an idiot and saying BOP is perfectly fine, after I just explained why it's not fine, and on top of that, you'd rather argue me and what I have to say over drug cartels, religions and conspiracy theorists because you're a full on hypocrite.
Surrealism

Con

I did not say calling someone an idiot means they will always be an idiot. That is a straw man.

Apparently you do not understand the Prisoner's Dilemma. I will explain. Two convicts are being interrogated. Each has the choice to either confess to the crime or to lie about it. If they both lie, they'll both get a year in prison. If one of them lies while the other confesses, the liar will get five years and the confessor will get off free. If they both confess, they'll both get two years. As described before, the rational decision is to confess, because no matter what the other person chooses you'll get less time in prison than you would have if you'd lied. However, if both players confess, they'll be worse off collectively than if they'd both lied. The scenario was created by John Nash and is a fundamental pillar of the field of game theory. Because the Prisoner's Dilemma showed that even if people act rationally the best outcome may not be maintained, John Nash is considered as great a contributor to game theory as the creator of the field, John von Neumann.

To return to my central point, the Prisoner's Dilemma helps demonstrate that problems in the world are not caused by stupidity. This may seem contrived, but in fact it's highly applicable. For example, take global warming. The solution would be for all countries to prioritize environmentally friendly manufacturing and energy production. In the short run, the economy would take a dip, however. Because the environment is more important, a superficial analysis might conclude that we haven't worked together to solve global warming because everyone is stupid. However, this is a simplistic analysis, and one that doesn't get to the root of the problem. From the point of view of any one country is the following. If every country pitches in, then we can stop global warming, although their economies will take dips. If most countries pitch in but one or two don't, then the countries that didn't help have the best outcome because they don't have to worry about global warming or economic downturns. If nobody pitches in, then the environment will not improve although economies will still be stable. And the worst outcome is if one or two countries pitch in but the rest don't, then the economies of those countries have taken downturns and global warming is still a problem. Thus, it is better for any one country to not pitch in no matter what the other countries do. As I said before, rational behavior can lead to worse outcomes. Attributing the world's problems to "everyone is stupid" is a puerile response.

Okay, whatever you're describing is not the burden of proof. For sake of clarity, this is what the burden of proof ACTUALLY is.

"the obligation to prove one's assertion"

That's all it is! It does not encourage acting before thinking, does not specify forms of evidence that are subjective, is not strictly personal, and has absolutely nothing to do with your example!

Also, people cannot getting away with making up evidence because other people tend to check that evidence, and if it turns out that their evidence is fraudulent, they are found out.

Additionally, you still have yet to address the following:

If burden of proof is unnecessary, I can say I have won this debate and do not need to prove it.

If burden of proof is unnecessary, I can assume contradictory claims without needing to prove them. The absence of burden of proof is self-contradictory.

In summary, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the burden of proof is, stubbornly defended a useless example, shown a simplistic view of the world's problems, frequently used ad hominem attacks, and not addressed key points against your contentions.
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

You implied it. I mean, you're seriously arguing people's idiocy as if it's that controversial.

I know the prisoner's dilemma - it's a red herring on your part.

What I am describing is the nature of BOP that people like you are too stupid to understand as you fail to expand your brain's wing span. Do you know those guys who get caught that are active in business that say "You have no proof", even though their behavioral patterns tell us the story in the first place? That's the system we need in place - not BOP. We need to go back to psychology and philosophy, not politics. Politics has done nothing except turn people into polite ticks that suck out the life of everyone who is against politics.

I can say that you have not won by the way you argue via tautologies rather than blunt truth. You toy with debates and you pull cards because you're not legitimate - you're a player.
Surrealism

Con

I didn't imply it. I said that the world being either entirely smart or entirely stupid was a false dichotomy. Stop using a straw man.

It is not a red herring. It is an example of how rationality can lead to suboptimal outcomes. I described in meticulous detail how rational choice can still result in outcomes that a simplistic analysis might lead you to believe is the result of stupidity, but in reality this is a childish view, as I have already explained.

No, I'm sorry, you can't change the definition of terms just because you want to. Burden of proof refers to the obligation to prove one's assertion, as I mentioned previously.

We cannot determine justice on the basis of hunches. Innocent until proven guilty is the best system because it protects people from being imprisoned unjustly. Justice was never based on psychology or philosophy. You have provided no real-world examples for any of your claims.

I haven't used any tautologies. I'm not toying with anything. You have given no examples for any of these claims.

You also still haven't addressed my proof. Calling it a tautology when it isn't does not address it.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
There's loop holes in them...
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
This idiot thinks I'm talking about definitions, rather than issues of the definitions.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
The biggest problem with BoP is that people do not recognize that they have it.

However this is just educational, nothing more.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
The same reason why BOP does not work in an argument is the same reason you cannot rewire people's brains.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
I'm a bit confused with your argument...BOP is what prevents people from using ignorance to win the argument...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
AerogantSurrealismTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's behavior was bad overall--he went straight for insult without any good reason to do so. Further, he never actually supported the motion under consideration. He went on long tangents about how to talk to people, but never addressed the notions that Con brought up regarding the need to justify an assertion. As Con noted, if we ignore the BoP completely, as Pro seems to advocate, we wind up with no way to "choose" one side or the other, and he's just as able to simply assert a win as argue for one. Pro's rambling didn't even come close to supporting the motion. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
AerogantSurrealismTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never even tried to fulfil his burden of proof.