The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: The Affirmative Debator is Not Required by DDO Rules to the Term "Burden of Proof"

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,277 times Debate No: 61854
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)





Each debater must provide their best evidence that the "Burden of Proof" is Stipulated or Not Stipulated in rules for the Affirmative Debater.
Pro must present convincing evidence the term BoP is not required by DDO debate or voting requirements for the Affirmative Debater.
n must present convincing evidence the term BoP is not required by DDO debate or voting requirements for the Affirmative Debater.

this website host.
Stipulate- demand or specify (a requirement).
Instigator- the person who initially starts the debate.
Affirmative- a statement asserting that something is true of the subject of a proposition.
Requirement- a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition.
[Accepting this debate means you agree to the definitions of the above bold faced words.]

Con must present his/her case in Round 1. Your argument is your acceptance. Writing just your "acceptance" or anything of the like in Round 1 is an automatic forfeiture. You must pass Round 3. The is NOT a troll debate. Any such trolling constitutes automatic forfeiture.

JUDGES FOR THIS DEBATE (If They Accept the Honor):
1. Bladerunner060 - DDO President / Impartial
2. Airmax 1227 - DDO Mod / Impartial
3. Ragnar - Impartial Voter
4. Mishapqueen - Impartial Voter
5. Richard Cypher - Impartial Voter
6. Doomswatter - Impartial Voter / The Only Person to Defeat Me other than Michelle.

Now, enter & prove your case.



If you make an affirmative statement (regardless of being the debate instigator or not which I am happy you defined as clearly distinct) then you immediately take the stance that your side is true. The other side merely has to prove that you failed to prove the truth, to win.

For example, if you are asserting that milk is white, you must prove that milk is white, if the debate ends and neither side has successfully proven what color milk is, the side contradicting that milk is white automatically wins because the side stating that milk is white had to prove milk was white. Every debate with a resolution to be affirmed, requires that the one affirming it has to prove that it is true, the other side is not responsible for proving the opposite true (unless this is specifically stated in round one) but is, instead, required to prove that the affirmative side failed to meet their burden of rpoof.

Essentially the burden of proof of the non-affirmative side is to explain why the other side didn't meet their burden of proof. So both sides have a BoP but the BoP of the non-affirmative is the simply prove that the affirmative never met theirs whereas the affirmative must prove the resolution to be true (unless it's a negative resolution where truth is being affirmed by Con/Opp).

The concept of "DDO rules" is simple. This site's debating rules, aside from no porn and the other stuff, is essentially that if the debate proceeds it has to be possible in the first place to establish what each side's purpose is. The entire purpose is the affirmative meet their BoP, the non-affirmative side is solely destructive. Any constructive points the non-affirmative raises is simply to discredit th affirmative' validity, as opposed to asserting their own.
Debate Round No. 1


Argument 1:
There are things I know upon which I discuss. And there are things I don't know upon which I avoid speculation. I know that this debate is titled "Resolved: The Affirmative Debater is Not Required by DDO Rules to the Term "Burden of Proof"". I know that the title is the resolution upon which I present a fact & upon which shall guide my argumentation. I know that my opponent did not present evidence of one (1) DDO rule that employs the term "burden of proof" as a requirement in an Affirmative Debater's debate.

Validity of Argument 1:
I know that the absence of such a rule from DDO, as evidence, un-submitted by my opponent has so far resolved: Con HAS NOT presented convincing evidence the term "burden of proof" IS REQUIRED by DDO debate OR voting requirements for the Affirmative Debater. I know that my opponent has so far in Round 1, speculated & assumed DDO stipulates on the Affirmative Debater the term "burden of proof."

Argument 2:
It has be presented clearly Con must show from DDO's debate & voting requirements the term "burden of proof" is a requirement for the Affirmative Debater. It has be presented clearly Pro must show such a term & its requirement does not exist in DDO debate & voting requirements.

Point 1.
Requirement- a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition. If we turn to this website's "Tips for a Better Debate"[1] page we shall find the author, commissioned by DDO, has detailed a number of "word terms" & set forth a number of "requirements--necessary conditions" for debaters.
A Few "word terms" are:
Grammar, spelling, punctuation, facts, quotes, sources, topic, forfeit, passion, emotion, strategy, review, etc.
A few requirements are:
We should "review [our] argument" for spelling & grammar errors; we should "cite all [sic] significant facts, quotes and sources"; our debates "should be a controversial statement"; all debaters "should imply that there are only two sides to the argument"; "all debates should follow a strategy or outline"; etc.
[1]- All quotations are direct quotes.

Point 2.
Now the crux of this second argument is that this DDO page, written in an affirmative tone, bears an 800 pound gorilla, in fact three of them! The words "prove", "proof", or term "burden of proof" are completely absent from its publication. In addition the word "affirmative" is not present. There is no rule bearing the term "burden of proof" or its requirement to an affirmative debater "Tips for a Better Debate."
Hmmm, curious.

Validity of Argument 2:
No term "burden of proof" nor a direct affirmation by DDO & its representatives states "the Affirmative Debater must prove his/her debate".

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." (
Okay then, so far one of DDO's official authoritative help pages does not mention any rules about a burden of proof required by the affirmative debater.

Hmmm, very curious.



Badman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Argument Extended.


Badman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
Your playing semantics & it's not working.

1st, there are a number of debates on here where the Contender didn't "prove" anything & voters voted against him, same for Instigator, he didn't prove his resolution, & still received votes. My point isn't arguing down this rabbit hole, therefore "proof" is basically "showing something".

2nd, the basic definitions of the words establish themselves as I proved--showed--below. You can attack them with any rhetoric you like, but they remain unbroken in there defining explanations.

3rd, Unless the debate is so limited in proper wording, there isn't one debate on DDO you can find where the Contender, thru this argumentation, did NOT apply the definition of proof. Again, in his argumentation you'll see the definition of proof playing out. Like I've stated it doesn't matter if its true or false, DDO stipulates the term of "convincing".

4th, Burden aka obligation TO DO SOMETHING is shared by both parties. Both are obligated to do something. Here's proof:
Instigator- Resolved: Poop, though disgusting in essence, looks like chocolate. R1 is for Con's acceptance.
Contender- I accept.
Instig.- Argument: Fecal matter, though it can be dispelled in selected colors, often looks like Hershey chocolate.
Cont.- FF
Instig.- Argument Extended for rebuttal.
Cont.- FF

This type of debate would receive 3 types of voting-related attention. 1. People would see that Instig. presented an argument & Contender didn't; & they'd vote for Instig, 2. People would see Instig. didn't literally prove his resolution with any visual evidence but Cont. FF; & vote Instig anyways. 3. People would see Instig. didn't literally prove his resolution with any visual evidence but Contender FF; & not vote at all.

Neither one proved anything but people would vote for the non-FF-er. DDO says to voters "who made the most convincing arguments?"

4th, Typing "Simon" isn't an argument, so Contender didn't "satisfying their end of the ar
Posted by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
:scratch of the head:

Okay, first up, a convincing argument doesn't always have a quantifiable threshold. Its not a math equation, not all debates are hinged around the objectifiable, which makes 'proof' or 'proving' something a bit more complicated than showing a picture or video of the sun.

Second up: a resolution. Equal application in all cases of an affirmation based on the following evidence, that is our instigator's purpose. Contender can hamstring the evidence and not bother with the resolution. That is exposing a fallacy. Contender didn't offer proof of their case, whatever it may be. They demonstrated why Instigator's argument can't be applied, no counter contention required. Showing how poorly your opponent founded their arguments is not offering proof that your specific contentions are correct. In such an instance, how could a baseless argument be considered convincing, and how could the contender not backing their own half of the argument be considered meeting a BOP (or whatever we would like to call it)?

Does the contender really need to formulate a case if the evidence related by the instigator is blatantly bogus? Contender could just play simple Simon, and without instigator refuting it would satisfying their end of the argument, no actual proof or evidence given.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
"exposing a fallacy isn't proof.
--Yes it is. Get a grasp of the definitions of words.
prove- "demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."
proof- "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
expose- "reveal the true and typically objectionable nature of (someone or something)"

Affirmative: Resolved: The Sun appears to be green in Earth's sky
Negative: When you reveal the true color[exposing], by appearance in the sky, by present pictures, videos, & even live demonstration [evidence through argumentation] you have proved the resolution is false with tangible proof.

By continuing to deny this simplistic understanding of definitions in the application of real life truisms proves you are an idiot. The proof is your denial. This comment is the exposure. Now I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm giving an example of how you or anyone will be weighed by employing the fallacy of your definition: "exposing a fallacy isn't proof."
Posted by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
"BoP is synonymous with Obligation of proof. Both sides shared it." --- even if one side (by your contetion) is proving a negative?

I am sensing a semantics debate here, Burden, Onus, Obligation, whatever you would like to phrase the concept of 'I need to prove my point rather than spout a baseless opinion'. In some cases, the opposition need not 'prove' anything, exposing a fallacy isn't proof.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
Correction: Angelina
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
"theirs is to poke holes enough to demonstrate the fallacy of the assertion"
-This method of attack you laid out is illustrating arguments "proving" something--the "assertion" is flawed.

Again, burden of proof is shared by both affirmative & negative. Figure out what "burden" means before rambling off that balderdash. It is "obligation". The contender is "obligated" to prove an "affirmative claim" is false. If the instigator laid out argument after argument saying "Cow's eat shitt; Pedophilia is noble; Angela Jolie is a man" as his resolution, and the contender simply said "Shitt-eating cows is false; Noble pedophilia is false; Angela's biological maleness is false". The contender would LOSE the debate even though we know cows don't eat dookie, pedophilia is disgusting, & Angela's recent pregnancy debunks her maleness. The contender didn't prove anything false, therefore by default the instigator's resolution is resolved by his convincing arguments.

BoP is synonymous with Obligation of proof. Both sides shared it.
Posted by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
Common Parlaence? BoP cannot be specifically defined since the Instigator can take up a position in which the contendor accepts a positive resolution. Satisfying one's arguments through evidence that is the goal of the instigator, common verbiage is BoP. Failing to require that onus be met is simply acting as yet another man at the shouting contest. There is no resolution to an opinion without proof, thus is the burden to provide it. Failing that, the assertion is not resolved, and you have not made the more convincing arguments.

Contendor need not specifically demonstrate a BoP, theirs is to poke holes enough to demonstrate the fallacy of the assertion, the incredulity of the proof provided, or, if available, show contradictory instances of the resolution.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
BOP is shared by both affirmative & negative. Now you want to say "in most cases" whereas you've be contending "a pro" always holds the BoP.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
This entire debate stems from this comment, which he is still to dense to understand

" A bop is resolved around the affirmative and negative in formal debate, please go to college ffs "

The instigator in most cases is always suppose to be the affirmative, so if the affirmative is actually the instigator yes they soley hold the BOP. That does not translate from formal debate to here, because you can instigate a debate as neg. If you are making an affirmative stance, you have the BOP. That is basically a trusim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RichardCypher 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: bop isn't a ddo guideline. pro's resolution is unchallenged. convincing argument. con didn't show any ddo rules as the debate rules said. con penalty. pro sourced ddo. points.