Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.
This is a short debate.
Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.
I: The user known as Diqiucun_Cunmin
Burden of proof: the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
This debate: The debate titled 'Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.' on Debate.org
R1 for acceptance only. The debate is free thereafter. No trolling. Sources can be in comments.
I thank my opponent for acceptance, and will move on to my argument.
"The burden of proof in this discussion is not clearly upon either party, but if it were upon either, it would necessarily be upon myself".
I am proposing this as a positive claim, and the following resource would have the burden of proof therefore fall upon myself:
"If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim.".
Both parties are claiming to have a burden of proof, and therefore, we are necessarily arguing the same position, just from a different perspective- it is comparable to a motion which reads "I am the tallest participant in this discussion"- both the proponent and the opponent would have to argue the same case- that they are themselves the tallest. In such a discussion, neither party clearly has the burden of proof- if one is true, the other is necessarily false, and vice versa.
The above link proposes the following, and it applies to this discussion:
"When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.".
This is necessarily the most reasonable case for an observer of this debate to hold- that neither the proposition nor the opposition of the motion can clearly be demonstrated to have the burden of proof, and that therefore the rational position is to not place the burden of proof on either party, as both positions should be regarded with ambivalence.
I thank my opponent for his arguments, and I will make specific rebuttals below. My opponent has made strong arguments about BOPs in general, but failed to make a convincing case in the context of our debate, as I shall demonstrate below.
Neither side has the BOP
My opponent appears to misunderstand the debate rules laid out in R1. Contrary to what Con has written, there is no alternative claim. The sole resolution is 'I have the burden of proof in this debate', and I defined 'I' to mean Diqiucun_Cunmin - that is, myself. So what Con is arguing for is not 'PsychicPhysicist has the burden of proof in this debate', nor is it the claim he brought out last round, but it is the negation of the resolution - 'It is not the case that Diqiucun_Cunmin has the burden of proof in this debate'. This is not an alternative resolution, either: The only resolution is that I, Diqiucun_Cunmin, have the BOP in this debate. As I am Pro, this confers upon me the sole burden of proof, for reasons I have adequately explained in the previous round.
Even if the negation of the resolution were an alternative resolution, my claim is still a stronger one and thus I have the BOP. This is because 'It is not the case that Diqiucun_Cunmin has the burden of proof in this debate' does not necessarily presuppose the existence of the BOP; it could be that I don't have the BOP because there's no such thing as a BOP.
Con more likely has the BOP
My opponent attempts to put a BOP on himself using this claim, which I shall call X: 'The burden of proof in this discussion is not clearly upon either party, but if it were upon either, it would necessarily be upon myself.' The problem is, this is not the resolution of this debate. The resolution says, 'I have the burden of proof in this debate'. As X is not the resolution, the scope of X's BOP is only within Con's argument space, instead of the entire debate. If I both Con and I forfeited all rounds, Con still would win as I didn't fulfill my BOP.
"The BOP does not exist".
"The BOP is upon Con".
"The BOP is not clearly upon either party"
and so on.
Yes, "The BOP is upon myself" is a consistent statement which would, in the event that both parties say no more on the matter, would be deemed true. However, as soon as that claim is disputed, as it was by myself, then the statement necessarily becomes false, as both Pro and Con have positive statements to uphold; in Pro's case that the BOP is upon himself, and in Con's case that the BOP does not exist, is upon himself, or is not on either party. In this specific discussion, I, as Con, asserted that the BOP is not clearly upon either party, and this is necessarily the most reasonable case, as both Pro and Con are making positive claims, and therefore they both have a requirement to provide proof of their claims. Therefore, in the event that no sufficient proof is produce by either party, or that both parties produce equally valid proof, the observer of the debate should finish reading with ambivalence towards both claims- the burden of proof is on neither party.
Incidentally, I would like to point out that neither party has a responsibility to assert the existence of the BOP, either, as this is well understood within debating circles and therefore should be granted as axiomatic.
Who the BOP falls on depends on whether it is contested- if not contested, it falls on Pro. If contested, as it was, it does not clearly fall on either party, and hence the motion is defeated.
I would like to thank my opponent for his words on this matter, and for proposing such an interesting discussion, and wish him luck in the voting procedure. I would also like to thank the readers and voters of this discussion for being involved in our motion, and I urge you to vote against the proposition, for the reasons above