Jonah never existed.
Debate Rounds (3)
Even if say a great white shark bothered Jonah, it probably just took a sample bite and swam away.
"However, most of these are not fatal, and new research finds that great whites, who are naturally curious, are "sample biting" then releasing their victims rather than preying on humans." 
I for one state Jonah never existed. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate.
When we look at Pro"s claim, we see that Pro is trying to disprove a historical figure by discrediting legendary stories that surround that character. Simply put, this is as weak as saying George Washington never existed because he never cut down a cherry tree.
Pro also discredits the Bible, the only available source on this character. But if we are to discredit the only source on a historical person, how can one reasonably prove this character never existed? The answer is that you can"t.
In short, Pro is trying to argue that Russell"s teapot doesn"t exist. The problem is that the burden of proof is squarely fixed on the instigator, who (in my opinion) will have an impossible time vainly trying to prove this assertion correct or even likely.
"In short, Pro is trying to argue that Russell"s teapot doesn"t exist. The problem is that the burden of proof is squarely fixed on the instigator, who (in my opinion) will have an impossible time vainly trying to prove this assertion correct or even likely." petfish
Nope, the burden of proof is on you. This is due to the difficulty of disproving negatives, I can't disprove unicorns. My opponent must have the burden of proof.
According to James Cargile:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim."
According to Christopher Hitchens:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Universally held debate ethics and regulations should not be changed just because an assertion is hard to prove. If Pro wished for the BoP to be shared, he/she might have worded the debate into a question. If Pro wanted me to have the sole BoP, he/she should have clearly stated that in the opening post. Anything outside of this is unethically shifting the BoP.
A short example: if I were to make a debate called 'Adolf Hitler is NOT dead', the BoP would be on me because I'm making a claim. And the fact that this claim is negative does not change the fact that I have the BoP.
I don't see the instigator automatically assuming the burden of proof.
As for the George Washington and the Cherry tree, we have many pictures of George Washington that stand up to scrutiny. The same can't be said for Jonah. Also, cutting down a cherry tree is much more likely than resurrection.
My opponent has again unfairly shifted the BoP over to my side, even though I demonstrated that the BoP is normally on the instigator.
My opponent has presented no alternative philosophy or reason for the BoP to be on me, except that it is hard to prove a negative. But this is hardly an adequate reason. So I find it insulting when he/she implies that the BoP is obviously on me.
Alternativatively, I did provide a rational framework where the BoP fits on my opponent. This isn't 'playing around'; this is providing actual quotes from actual debaters and philosophers on the subject.
Finally, my opponent's whole stance on the BoP is unreferenced, which makes his position on this matter a bare assertion.
"...we have many pictures of George Washington that stand up to scrutiny. The same can't be said for Jonah."
This argument also carries no citations with it, making it another bare assertion. Also, this counter argument seems to be misrepresenting my first argument which was that you cannot say someone did not exist simply because there are false legends about that person.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.