The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Charlie_Danger
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Pro has the burden of proof in a debate

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 3 votes the winner is...
Charlie_Danger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,828 times Debate No: 8301
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

studentathletechristian8

Con

Looking through various debates on this website, it has become prevalent that many debaters open their arguments by saying that Pro must start the debate because Pro has the burden of proof. This assumption is both erroneous and fallacious.

I shall negate the resolution, "Pro has the burden of proof in a debate."

Pro- a proponent of an issue; a person who upholds the affirmative in a debate.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

burden of proof- the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

debate- a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

My job is to prove why Pro does not have the burden of proof in a debate.

I will now let Pro present his argument, for Pro has the burden of proof......

NOT!!!!!!

I see this on so many opening rounds. "Pro has the burden of proof." This is a ridiculous statement. In a debate, both PRO and CON must present evidence for their side. Con cannot just wait for Pro to make an argument and then rebuttal. A debate is where the two sides both have to try and convince each other/the moderator that their view is "correct." Why single it out so only Pro has the burden of proof? There are two sides to a debate, not one.

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? This may regard the legal system, but it can directly apply to debate. Every resolution is accepted until there is evidence that contradicts it or proves it false. That is Con's responsibility, so the burden of proof would actually fall on Con, not Pro.

I shall further my argument in the proceeding rounds.
Charlie_Danger

Pro

Thank you for this debate.

For simplicity's sake, I will do what I ussually do not, which is debate California-Style. (Without a constructive)

My opponent's sole contention is that it is unfair for the Affirmative to be the only one with the "burden of proof" in a debate round.
In this round so far, my opponent has already lost. By making no real warrant (because he doesn't have to) you assume that what he says is true (I'll explain this more later) until I prove that he is wrong, which I am about to do. Basically speaking, by taking the negative position in this debate, you are conceding the debate.

Affirming or proving anything true for that matter requires a point of evidence (aka proof) from the person making a claim. For example, I can say that the sky is red. I don't have any proof to enforce my point, so the person opposing me (the Negative) simply needs to say: "No, it's not" since it is a statement of fact. Everything is "negative" by default because whenever something is to be proven, it needs proof (ergo the word "proof" being the root word of "prove") to show that it is true.

Therefore, you must affirm this resolution since definitionally and logically, any statement is "negative until proven affirmative" (turning my opponent's own wording against him) not vice versa.
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Charlie_Danger

Pro

And the Affirmative's "proof" goes unrefuted.

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I guess the idea I didn't articulate the same way I would know is that if you are the proponent, (aka Someone making a claim) you MUST warrant/prove that your claim is true. This is the burden of proof, meaning that all resolutions (aka Topics) are "negated by default" because they haven't been proven true. When I made an additional claim, I had the burden of proof, ONLY BECAUSE I CHOOSE THAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT, NO becuase I am the AFFIRMATIVE.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
What is that supposed to mean?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Because he has friends in high places.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Why does CON have any points at all?
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
RFD: pro wins all points because con forfieted both rounds.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
He has technically conceded this debate. Because I am the instigator and am Con, I take part in having the burden of proof in a debate, so I would think about the vote.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
No, no, you see, he has no warrant.

Therefore, no proof.

Therefore, no burden.

It is MY burden to prove him wrong.

Like Logical and Tarzan were saying, he is the proponent, and it is his burden to PROVE his claim. He hasn't.

Therefore, vote affirmative.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Charlie, you just agreed with him.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
That happens when you want to debate something on the negative side, but no one is challenging that position. Then you can post the debate as negative, and argue what you want to argue, without waiting for someone to post it.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Precisely, Tarzan.

The instigator is called the instigator for a reason. Why wouldn't the burden of proof belong to someone who was INSTIGATING a claim? ;)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
studentathletechristian8Charlie_DangerTied
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 RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
studentathletechristian8Charlie_DangerTied
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 Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
studentathletechristian8Charlie_DangerTied
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