The Instigator
Daktoria
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lizard
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Shared BoP Is Elitist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Lizard
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 31344
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Daktoria

Con

This debate is about the characteristic of burden of proof in public policy debates. To demonstrate, Con and Pro will pretend to be two people actually participating in a social program.

Con will be a "strong" person.

Pro will be a "weak" person.

Before participation, Pro was skeptical of the social program necessarily being safe and respectful. Pro did not have evidence in advance of experience which proved the social program's unreliability, so was forced to "go with the program".

In the course of this social program, Pro becomes injured but lacks the evidence required to prove one's injury. Unfortunately, Pro wasn't born with video cameras out of one's eyes, or microphones out of one's ears. Furthermore, Pro wasn't born with a network of surveillance equipment or personal contacts that would be able to prove or testify what happened.

Also, at the time of injury, Pro was duressed. Therefore, Pro couldn't appeal to authorities at the moment of injury to get help.

Pro never consented to participate, so Pro is a negative party.

However, in our society, BoP is shared. Whoever makes a claim is obligated to prove one's point.

Pro must prove that our society is elitist. After all, Pro never had any hope of avoiding injury, and now, can't even prove one's case over becoming injured.

Con will take the position of personal responsibility in that Pro's problem of being weak is one's own and nobody else's.
Lizard

Pro

I'm not really following what Con is saying in round 1, but he said this in the comments,

"It's about getting people to admit that burden of proof is on the affirmative, not shared.

When burden of proof is shared, it forces weak people to assume the risk of getting hurt."

So I guess this means I need to argue that there are valid cases where BoP ought to be shared. If there's only one factor to the debate, like "Capitalism is good", then BoP is on the affirmative, but if the debate is "Capitalism v Communism", then BoP is obviously shared because there's two things that need to be argued for. In other words, BoP should always be shared when the negation of one thesis does not assume the other thesis. I'm a progressive, and I think capitalism has a number of failings, but that doesn't mean I think communism is good! So if I took a "capitalism v communism" debate, I'd have to both point out capitalism's failings AND argue for communism.

On to Con's second statement about getting hurt.

You aren't forced to take a debate, so if you're a weak person who "get's hurt" by having to share the BoP, then you shouldn't take the debate. If you take it, it's all on you. I'm not really sure how sharing the BoP hurts people to begin with, so I think Con needs to clear this up next round.

Anyway, to conclude there are legitimate reasons to share BoP and since you aren't forced to take debates there's no reasons for this to hurt anybody (assuming it could hurt anybody anyway).
Debate Round No. 1
Daktoria

Con

Pro doesn't understand the nature of the argument.

Social programs are situations where you are forced to take a debate. A weak person (who is injured) does not have a choice.

As setup before, Pro was skeptical of the social program necessarily being safe and respectful. Pro did not have evidence in advance of experience which proved the social program's unreliability, so was forced to "go with the program". In sharing the BoP, Pro never had any hope of avoiding injury, and now, can't even prove one's case over becoming injured. Pro wasn't born with video cameras out of one's eyes, or microphones out of one's ears. Furthermore, Pro wasn't born with a network of surveillance equipment or personal contacts that would be able to prove or testify what happened.

Pro guessed "that there are valid cases where BoP ought to be shared". Perhaps that's the case, but this argument is about how shared BoP is elitist. If Pro wishes to explain how elitism is valid, that's up to Pro to decide.

However, I'm not sure how Pro, as a weak (and now injured) person in society, would remain respected among elitism. The injury Pro endured before would not be compensated, so Pro would still be expected to take personal responsibility.
Lizard

Pro

Once again my opponent is very unclear about what he's talking about. Are we talking about social programs or debating? And what sort of social program are we talking about? He also states that sharing BoP is elitist, but I see no actual argument for why this is the case. Is he saying that because someone might be weak, they might not be able to handle having a BoP as well as the "elites" can? And what does this have to do with social programs? I can't really debate Con because he hasn't put forth an argument, so there's nothing to counter.

When it comes to "weakness", there isn't much physical strain involved in debating. I can easily gather all the information I need without even leaving my bed. If anything, debating is one of the few competitive things a person can do without having to exert physical effort.
Debate Round No. 2
Daktoria

Con

If Pro sees no reason for BoP to be elitist, then Pro has conceded the debate. As explained in R1, pro in this debate is supposed to argue that shared BoP is elitist:

"Pro must prove that our society is elitist. After all, Pro never had any hope of avoiding injury, and now, can't even prove one's case over becoming injured."

Furthermore, Pro is stating a false dichotomy. Round 1 explicitly describes the situation at hand being about social programs and debate where they are not mutually exclusive.

Lastly, Pro states there's nothing to counter. Pro isn't supposed to counter. Pro is supposed to assert.

Vote Con.
Lizard

Pro

"explained in R1, pro in this debate is supposed to argue that shared BoP is elitist"

Okay, I think I'm starting to see what Con is trying to argue about. My confusion was understandable given that my opponent has been known to take Con on an issue he plans on arguing pro for [1]. I figured this was another one of those debates given what he said in the comments section "It's about getting people to admit that burden of proof is on the affirmative, not shared. When burden of proof is shared, it forces weak people to assume the risk of getting hurt.", which sounds a lot like he plans on arguing that shared BoP is elitist.

I still don't understand what social program we're talking about. Con says the first round clearly shows we're talking about "social programs and debate where they are not mutually exclusive", firstly that sentence doesn't even make sense to me and secondly nothing in the first round is clear... Con has set up an unclear resolution and an even less-clear scenario for this debate to operate in.

If I'm meant to argue pro, then I'll give a general argument for how sharing BoP can be elitist.

Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. [2]

Given this, we can imagine a situation where, in a debate, voters will grant points to the person who rightfully deserved to lose the debate because they view that person as superior. When questioned on their voting, they can defend their vote by claiming BoP was shared and therefore the less-popular user deserved to lose for not fulfilling their half of the BoP, even if BoP was rightfully exclusive to the Pro of this hypothetical debate.

Vote Pro.

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Daktoria

Con

Pro is referring to comments, another debate, and is insisting on a prejudiced interpretation of "social programs" as if some social programs deserve preference before others. All of these are off-topic engagements, personal attacks, and poor conduct.

Pro also ignores how resolutions are not oppositions. Con is not Pro.

Furthermore, Pro is focusing on the result of a debate instead of the process of a debate. Burden of proof is a characteristic which is expected to be upheld during debate, not after debate has concluded.

Even more so, Pro has not explained why anyone should care whether not an injured party is popular or not. Perhaps the injured party isn't popular such that outsiders view the issue with prejudice, but that's Pro's personal problem to be responsible for in overcoming. It isn't elitism at all. Everyone has to play the popularity contest.

Finally, Pro also goes from better to worse in saying, "...the less-popular user deserved to lose for not fulfilling their half of the BoP, even if BoP was rightfully exclusive to the Pro of this hypothetical debate." Now, Pro has removed any and all BoP from social program advocates, but rather claims that it's his personal responsibility alone to prove his injury.

Please vote Con.
Lizard

Pro

I'm referring to a comment made in THIS debate, so it's relevant. And the other debate I sourced was meant to establish that my opponent is known for making his position the opposite of what he intends to argue for. These aren't off topic, they're directly related to the core issue of this debate, which is that Con has made an unclear resolution and scenario.

If it's my burden to give an example of how sharing BoP can be elitist, then I've succeeded in doing that. If I'm arguing for the resolution and not my opponent, then I don't know why he is bothering trying to tell me how I ought to give my argument. I don't need a social program or a hypothetical injury to show what I need to show in this debate, and frankly it's still unclear exactly what Con means by these things.

In short, an unclear resolution and position set up by my opponent, along with his refusal to explain just what he wants this debate to be about despite constant requests for clarification has made this debate unintelligible.

The only thing I've gotten out of this debate is that I am tasked with giving an example instantiating how a shared BoP can be elitist, which I did last round. Since that's all I had to do, my BoP has been met.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
It's about getting people to admit that burden of proof is on the affirmative, not shared.

When burden of proof is shared, it forces weak people to assume the risk of getting hurt.
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
What the hell is this debate even about?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DaktoriaLizardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con as Instigator has the obligation to make a clear resolution. Pro makes a reasonable interpretation of the resolution and gives a good counterexample showing shared BofP. Con's point remains incomprehensible to the end.
Vote Placed by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
DaktoriaLizardTied
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: This is amazing. I was right there with Pro. I have no idea what this debate was supposed to look like according to Con's "explanation". Daktoria never ceases to confound.