Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burden of Proof

mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2009 8:19:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

In the first round, as Instigator, I said:
"My opponent will be the one with the burden of proof, as he or she will have to show some undiscardable evidence to the age of the universe, and be able to defend them from my attacks."

After all, how could I prove a lack of proof?

My opponent gladly accepted the debate, then said:
"Yeah, that's what happens when you try to play the burden of proof card with me. Using your logic, the burden of proof is on YOU my friend."

I responded:
"When you accept my debate, you must abide by the rules that I laid out in the first round. One rule was that you carry the burden of proof, because it is necessary to fit the resolution properly."

Was I right?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2009 8:30:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So many repeat topics.

The conflict of burden of proof will never become consensus. Thus the best thing to do to satisfy all potential voters is to just provide a case regardless.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2009 8:06:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
There can be no general rule to burden of proof until the resolution is known. Once the resolution is known, then the burden is objectively clear. Whether the person is the instigator or the contender, whether the person is PRO or CON, these things can serve as general guidelines but are not always correct.

If we were to decide on one, then technically, the Instigator/Contender distinction would be the best. However, that does not mean that in this sort of situation:

http://www.debate.org...

the burden rests on the Instigator. I believe that in this instance, the burden rests on the contender.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2009 9:21:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/8/2009 8:06:36 AM, Kleptin wrote:
There can be no general rule to burden of proof until the resolution is known. Once the resolution is known, then the burden is objectively clear. Whether the person is the instigator or the contender, whether the person is PRO or CON, these things can serve as general guidelines but are not always correct.

If we were to decide on one, then technically, the Instigator/Contender distinction would be the best. However, that does not mean that in this sort of situation:

http://www.debate.org...

the burden rests on the Instigator. I believe that in this instance, the burden rests on the contender.

No, a simple glance at the debate shows that Pro conceded that the burden falls on him, as it always does. This is elementary stuff Kleptin.. stop wasting everybodies time.

John 15:20 (New King James Version)
20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
The Cross.. the Cross.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2009 1:17:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sometimes the BOP can be determined by the resolution:
"Resolved: There is a god."
BOP falls on PRO.
"Resolved: There is currently no argument against god's existence."
BOP falls on CON.

And if the contender accepts a debate that declares that he/she has BOP, then he should accept that BOP.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2009 3:26:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/8/2009 1:17:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sometimes the BOP can be determined by the resolution:
"Resolved: There is a god."
BOP falls on PRO.
"Resolved: There is currently no argument against god's existence."
BOP falls on CON.

And if the contender accepts a debate that declares that he/she has BOP, then he should accept that BOP.

There's always an argument.

Isaiah 3:10-12 (New King James Version)
10 " Say to the righteous that it shall be well with them,
For they shall eat the fruit of their doings.
The Cross.. the Cross.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2009 7:13:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/8/2009 1:17:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sometimes the BOP can be determined by the resolution:
"Resolved: There is a god."
BOP falls on PRO.
"Resolved: There is currently no argument against god's existence."
BOP falls on CON.

And if the contender accepts a debate that declares that he/she has BOP, then he should accept that BOP.

But you told me that BOP was on the Instigator in such a case.
Nail_Bat
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2009 2:20:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Burden of proof aside, why would anyone accept a debate where the Instigator has phrased the challenge in a way that he can not possibly lose? There is no such thing as 100% proven outside of formal logic.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2009 5:23:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/9/2009 2:20:55 PM, Nail_Bat wrote:
Burden of proof aside, why would anyone accept a debate where the Instigator has phrased the challenge in a way that he can not possibly lose? There is no such thing as 100% proven outside of formal logic.

I don't know. Ask diety.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2009 5:31:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2009 8:19:56 PM, mongeese wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

In the first round, as Instigator, I said:
"My opponent will be the one with the burden of proof, as he or she will have to show some undiscardable evidence to the age of the universe, and be able to defend them from my attacks."

After all, how could I prove a lack of proof?

My opponent gladly accepted the debate, then said:
"Yeah, that's what happens when you try to play the burden of proof card with me. Using your logic, the burden of proof is on YOU my friend."

I responded:
"When you accept my debate, you must abide by the rules that I laid out in the first round. One rule was that you carry the burden of proof, because it is necessary to fit the resolution properly."

Was I right?

A person who takes your debate doesn't have to accept everything you say in your first round. Otherwise, they would have to accept all your arguments too if you made them the first round!

Of course, what you can do is ARGUE that he has the burden of proof, since it is apparently a relevant point of disagreement.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2009 6:26:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Repeat: The conflict of burden of proof will never become consensus. Thus the best thing to do to satisfy all potential voters is to just provide a case regardless.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2009 6:47:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The main point that I was really going for was if my opponent was required to follow any rules said about the debate in the first round.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2009 10:39:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Burden of proof goes to the side that is making an affirmative statement (something is), whether that be Pro or Con. Most of the times it is Pro, but it can be Con if the resolution is worded in a negative way (something is not).
KRFournier
Posts: 690
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 10:40:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/10/2009 10:39:34 PM, LB628 wrote:
Burden of proof goes to the side that is making an affirmative statement (something is), whether that be Pro or Con. Most of the times it is Pro, but it can be Con if the resolution is worded in a negative way (something is not).

But "something is not" is still an affirmative assertion. This is why I suggested earlier that Instigator should always be Pro. It forces them to create a resolution which they affirm. In my opinion, it's cowardly to instigate a resolution you intend to negate and insists they have BOP.

If you want to start a debate, you should man up and affirm your position.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 10:45:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Burden of Proof belongs to the side making the initiating claim. This is the case regardless of whether or not one is PRO or CON. In all honesty, I fail to see where the confusion is coming from here. The instigator shall always be the one positing something (whether it's Position X is correct or Position X is false). It is up to the contender to say "Nuh-uh and here's why"
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 10:47:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Of course, I fancy the idea of both sides having to actually argue why claim X is or isn't true, rather than just one getting sitting around spamming the BOF. In those cases, I feel inclined to vote against the person doing this (unless it's me and my opponent fails to successful nip this tactic in the butt. :D )
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 10:54:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that Logic Master has the Burden of Proof in every single debate on this website. Even debates in which he is not involved.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 11:35:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
BoP always lies with the instigator.

Example 1:

Resolved: There are no such things as laundry fairies.

Immediately, regardless of who puts forth the statement, someone has made a claim. If it is put forth as Pro, the resolution stands. If put forth as Con, the burden of proof is on Con to show that there ARE such things as laundry fairies.

Example 2:

Resolved: God exists.

Again, if put forth as Pro, the BoP is on Pro to give an argument for the existence of God. If put forth by Con, the BoP is on Con to show that God does not exist.

Example 3:

Resolved: One should masturbate every hour on the hour.

Normative claims like this present an unusual circumstance. If put forth as Pro, it urges action (lots of action...) and thus the BoP lies on Pro, especially since it represents a change in the status quo (assuming that Pro does NOT masturbate that frequently...). If put forth by Con, the BoP resides in proving that the status quo is a better alternative than the proposition.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 10:21:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that the burden of proof lies with Pro by default, because Pro is the one calling the audience to the action of approving the resolution. If the case is unproven, then the resolution fails. The contradiction is not affirmed. It is analogous to "not guilty" in a trial not meaning "innocent." If someone instigates a debate as Con, and you don't want to accept the burden of proof as Pro, simply decline the challenge.

Now, that's the default. I think it is perfectly fair to put conditions on a debate. The most common condition is to impose LD debate rules. In this case the instigator added the condition of asserting the burden of proof, which clarifies where the burden lies for that debate. If the challenge is accepted and contender fails to obey the conditions, that's a conduct violation. The challenger didn't do what he agreed to do in accepting the debate.

Since "undiscardable" is not in the dictionary, it's meaning can be contested. Most proof is established by something along the lines of "beyond reasonable doubt." Very little in science is established beyond any doubt, but nonetheless there are many reliable facts. Judge warns juries that few things are beyond "any doubt." If the demand of the resolution is for absolute proof, then the challenge should be declined.
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 10:40:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Burden of proof on this website tends to be a highly abusive thing. Placing a framework on a debate is usually necessary to save everyone aggravation and time in interpreting the nature of a given resolution. However, the resolutional analysis on this website tends to create debates that could be termed as unethical, based on the purpose of intellectual discussion.

With that said, I think that the best of debates have a pro and a con that are both willing to make offensive arguments (i.e. cases) of their own. If I am to be expected to vote on this website, I want a compelling reason to do so, or I'll essentially issue a double loss (i.e. not bother to vote). Persuasion, I find, is better achieved via positive argumentation.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 10:51:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/11/2009 2:54:59 PM, mongeese wrote:
Yes. What if, however, the Instigator mentions that for the debate to work, BOP MUST lie on the Contender?

What if the instigator mentions that he is not obligated to actually debate during the debate and that his opponent loses by default for typing?

There aer some reasonable conditions which one should be willing to abide by under the guise of courtesy . . . however, unreasonable conditions are a different story and if a debate accepts the debate only to say "NO" to these unreasonable conditions, this should be entirely acceptable.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 11:09:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that the burden of proof lies with Pro by default, because :Pro is the one calling the audience to the action of approving the resolution.

Both sides are calling the audience to action. Said action is translated as "accept or deny the claim made in the resolution. If both debaters fail to successfully call the audience to their respective actions, the audience is to vote the debate as a tie (hence the existence of this option).

"If the case is unproven, then the resolution fails.

If CON cannot demonstrate that the case is unproven, the resolution is accepted (the only exception to this is when PRO has no real case, in which case the audience votes a tie).

The contradiction is not affirmed.

I don't follow. How is one not able to affirm that "claim X is false?"

It is analogous to "not guilty" in a trial not meaning "innocent."

1) You're now referring to the legalistic form of the BOF. We users on this website are not obligated to follow the ideals and guidelines which exist in the courts.

2) The courts rendering (or rather, terminology to be more precise) is flawed nevertheless on the basis that mere lack of evidence isn't proof that someone isn't guilty. Rather, it would only be reasonable to dictate that it is inconclusive as to whether or not they have committed a crime. Thus, it would be more appropriate to declare someone guilty when evidence demonstrates this, not guilty when evidence confirms this or inconclusive when there there is a lack of evidence to make a conclusion. Essentially, this 'inconclusive" title would possess the same attributes to being declared not guilty, but a different distinction nevertheless (which is why I claim that the problem exist in terminology alone).

If someone instigates a debate as Con, and you don't want to :accept the burden of proof as Pro, simply decline the challenge.

Others are free to do that. However (for me personally), I shall do no such thing. If PRO fails to successfully contest any arguments I provide to refute his rendering of the burden of proof, then the audience ought to accept what I've claimed and consider the BOF as something which he/she possesses
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:12:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/7/2009 8:30:40 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
So many repeat topics.

The conflict of burden of proof will never become consensus. Thus the best thing to do to satisfy all potential voters is to just provide a case regardless.

There is a consensus on burden of proof, and there has been for a long time.
People who don't agree don't agree because they know they are wrong.

For factual claims, the burden of proof is on whoever that states the fact is true. For theories, the burden of proof is on whoever claims the theory is false.

Ref: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper
So prove me wrong, then.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 8:31:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 4:12:20 AM, regebro wrote:
At 5/7/2009 8:30:40 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
So many repeat topics.

The conflict of burden of proof will never become consensus. Thus the best thing to do to satisfy all potential voters is to just provide a case regardless.

There is a consensus on burden of proof, and there has been for a long time.
People who don't agree don't agree because they know they are wrong.

For factual claims, the burden of proof is on whoever that states the fact is true. For theories, the burden of proof is on whoever claims the theory is false.

Ref: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper

I theorize that the world is going to explode on 2012. Prove me wrong.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 9:20:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You are correct, since Pro was the one making the positive claim. Also, since you said that Pro had the burden of proof, he shouldn't have accepted if he didn't want it.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 9:38:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
THere exists a theory that beyond the edge of the universe, there is a floating teacup in orbit.

Prove me wrong.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light