Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

BoP and status quo

tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

The BoP is on the person affirming the resolution, regardless of status quo. However, most resolutions are about changing the status quo, such as legal changes. If "God does not exist" is the resolution, Pro has the BoP. If "Two plus two equals four" was the resolution, then even though it supports the status quo, pro still has BoP.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:06:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:04:06 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

The BoP is on the person affirming the resolution, regardless of status quo. However, most resolutions are about changing the status quo, such as legal changes. If "God does not exist" is the resolution, Pro has the BoP. If "Two plus two equals four" was the resolution, then even though it supports the status quo, pro still has BoP.

Well I'd say that whatever the resolution is, whether or not it's positive or negative, the person who's claiming it's *true* is the one with the burden.

Even if everyone agrees with me that "Squares have four sides" if I go and make a debate titled "Squares have four sides" I have the burden to prove it. If I say that something is true, I should defend that. If I say that something is false, I should defend it.

So I'm not sure where "status quo" fits in.
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just because most people believe something, I don't see how that's reason to show that the BoP is on the other person.

If everyone believed that there's a flying teapot in outer space, and there was literally no arguments to believe this, the burden wouldn't be on me. It would be on the person making the assertion.

So I really don't see how the "status quo" is anything other than "Hey! We all believe X. So you have to disprove it!" Which seems to be argument ad populum et ignoratium.

Et illa est merda equitis.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

I agree. The status quo is a believable but fallacious excuse to avoid having to post opening arguments on the part of the instigator.
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:14:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

That isn't a policy resolution. There is no status quo regarding the existence of God.


Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

During slavery or the Jim Crow era you would have the BOP to prove that we should change those policies. It also would've been a very easy burden to fulfill.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
People on DDO have a big hard on for BOP and I dont really get it. Like, all that it means for Aff to have the BOP is that if, at the end of the day, Neg totally 100% defeats all of their arguments and Aff totally 100% defeats all of Negs arguments you vote Neg by default. How often does that happen? Relying on your opponent having the BOP is really dangerous because any impact, even a small one, is enough to fulfill it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:20:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:14:29 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

That isn't a policy resolution. There is no status quo regarding the existence of God.


So you're saying that the statement "The one arguing against the status quo should have the burden" only works when it's political policies?

Why should anyone believe that? Just because a policy is in effect, does that mean I have the burden to prove it should be changed? Who says it's just a "keep going the usual until proven otherwise"?

If someone says, "X policy should be put into place" how is this any different than saying "X statement should be believed"? Just because something is generally accepted as true, that doesn't mean the burden is on the person who disagrees with it.

Likewise, just because something is being put into practice, it doesn't follow that the person who disagrees with it should have the burden.

So I don't see how the two are different. If you agree that it works only in policy cases, then you need to show what the property is that makes this different, and show *why* it makes it different.

I can claim that "It's different!" until I'm blue in the face, but until I actually show *why* it's different, and *why* that even matters, all I've done is blow steam.


Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

During slavery or the Jim Crow era you would have the BOP to prove that we should change those policies. It also would've been a very easy burden to fulfill.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:20:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:09:43 PM, tbhidc wrote:
Just because most people believe something, I don't see how that's reason to show that the BoP is on the other person.

If everyone believed that there's a flying teapot in outer space, and there was literally no arguments to believe this, the burden wouldn't be on me. It would be on the person making the assertion.

So I really don't see how the "status quo" is anything other than "Hey! We all believe X. So you have to disprove it!" Which seems to be argument ad populum et ignoratium.

Et illa est merda equitis.

Status quo doesn't really apply to "we believe something." More that "something is the case and can be changed." When considering that something is changed, you need proof that the proposed change is a good change. I personally think that the status quo needs to be upheld to a certain extent, but the burden is still on changing the status quo for a simple reason: Just because the status quo is bad does not constitute that the proposed change is good.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:23:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:20:16 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:09:43 PM, tbhidc wrote:
Just because most people believe something, I don't see how that's reason to show that the BoP is on the other person.

If everyone believed that there's a flying teapot in outer space, and there was literally no arguments to believe this, the burden wouldn't be on me. It would be on the person making the assertion.

So I really don't see how the "status quo" is anything other than "Hey! We all believe X. So you have to disprove it!" Which seems to be argument ad populum et ignoratium.

Et illa est merda equitis.

Status quo doesn't really apply to "we believe something." More that "something is the case and can be changed." When considering that something is changed, you need proof that the proposed change is a good change. I personally think that the status quo needs to be upheld to a certain extent, but the burden is still on changing the status quo for a simple reason: Just because the status quo is bad does not constitute that the proposed change is good.

Can't I just flip that on it's head.

We need reasons to believe that we should continue putting X policy into practice.

?

Like I said to thett, you need to show exactly *how* the two are different, and why this even matters in the first place. You need to show how they're essentially structurally different and why we can't apply the same reasoning to each.

Otherwise I could claim, "Hey. Killing a man and killing a woman is different, because men and women are different. So just because killing a man is wrong, that doesn't mean killing a woman is wrong". Yes, killing a man and killing a woman is different. No, it doesn't matter one iota that they're different.

So you need to do two things. (i) Show they're different. (ii) Show why this matters at all.
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:20:04 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:14:29 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

That isn't a policy resolution. There is no status quo regarding the existence of God.


So you're saying that the statement "The one arguing against the status quo should have the burden" only works when it's political policies?

How can their possibly be a status quo if there is no action that's currently being implemented i.e. a status quo?

Why should anyone believe that? Just because a policy is in effect, does that mean I have the burden to prove it should be changed? Who says it's just a "keep going the usual until proven otherwise"?

Yep. There's no reason for the judge to take an action, changing the status quo, until you give them a reason to do so.


If someone says, "X policy should be put into place" how is this any different than saying "X statement should be believed"?

You have the BOP on both of those resolutions because you are taking the affirmative. If I say "It's probable God exists" I have the BOP. If the resolution is "Does God exist?" I do not.

Just because something is generally accepted as true, that doesn't mean the burden is on the person who disagrees with it.

That isn't what I said.


Likewise, just because something is being put into practice, it doesn't follow that the person who disagrees with it should have the burden.

Yes it does. I have no reason to take action to change the status quo until you tell me to. If I am not given them, why on Earth would I vote for the affirmative team?

So I don't see how the two are different. If you agree that it works only in policy cases, then you need to show what the property is that makes this different, and show *why* it makes it different.

The status quo is only relevant in policy cases because policy resolutions are the only ones where a status quo exists...

I can claim that "It's different!" until I'm blue in the face, but until I actually show *why* it's different, and *why* that even matters, all I've done is blow steam.


Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

During slavery or the Jim Crow era you would have the BOP to prove that we should change those policies. It also would've been a very easy burden to fulfill.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:25:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems to me that there's an unstated premise here...

P1: Whatever is in place, should stay in place until proven otherwise
P2: X policy is in place
C: X policy should stay in place until proven otherwise

And literally *nobody* has defended P1.
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:29:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:25:34 PM, tbhidc wrote:
It seems to me that there's an unstated premise here...

P1: Whatever is in place, should stay in place until proven otherwise
P2: X policy is in place
C: X policy should stay in place until proven otherwise

And literally *nobody* has defended P1.

That's because it isn't the premise. The premise is that I have no reason to take an action unless I have reason to believe that taking that action would be good. That's where the person wanting to change the squo's burden comes in.

You should look at my other post on BOP...it's irrelevant 99% of the time.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:29:11 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:25:34 PM, tbhidc wrote:
It seems to me that there's an unstated premise here...

P1: Whatever is in place, should stay in place until proven otherwise
P2: X policy is in place
C: X policy should stay in place until proven otherwise

And literally *nobody* has defended P1.

That's because it isn't the premise. The premise is that I have no reason to take an action unless I have reason to believe that taking that action would be good. That's where the person wanting to change the squo's burden comes in.


If anything, we should remain agnostic. We have X policy in place. Someone proposes Y policy. We shouldn't think "Oop! Looks like the guy proposing Y policy should have the burden since X is already in place." Rather, we should believe which policy should be in place because of the *arguments* given for them. Not because we're already doing it one way.

You should look at my other post on BOP...it's irrelevant 99% of the time.

Where's that?
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:33:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:30:52 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:29:11 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:25:34 PM, tbhidc wrote:
It seems to me that there's an unstated premise here...

P1: Whatever is in place, should stay in place until proven otherwise
P2: X policy is in place
C: X policy should stay in place until proven otherwise

And literally *nobody* has defended P1.

That's because it isn't the premise. The premise is that I have no reason to take an action unless I have reason to believe that taking that action would be good. That's where the person wanting to change the squo's burden comes in.


If anything, we should remain agnostic. We have X policy in place. Someone proposes Y policy. We shouldn't think "Oop! Looks like the guy proposing Y policy should have the burden since X is already in place." Rather, we should believe which policy should be in place because of the *arguments* given for them.

Which is why BOP is irrelevant 99% of the time. Like how much of an advantage do you think not having the BOP actually confers? Virtually zero. Again, you have to convince me to take an action as a judge. That's exactly what you are doing with your arguments. When you have the BOP, all that means is that if your arguments are all destroyed I vote Neg.

Not because we're already doing it one way.

You should look at my other post on BOP...it's irrelevant 99% of the time.

Where's that?

http://www.debate.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:34:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:24:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:20:04 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:14:29 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

That isn't a policy resolution. There is no status quo regarding the existence of God.


So you're saying that the statement "The one arguing against the status quo should have the burden" only works when it's political policies?

How can their possibly be a status quo if there is no action that's currently being implemented i.e. a status quo?


Yes, there's a status quo. I just don't see how this justifies that the BoP is automatically on the person who wants to change the status quo.

Why should anyone believe that? Just because a policy is in effect, does that mean I have the burden to prove it should be changed? Who says it's just a "keep going the usual until proven otherwise"?

Yep. There's no reason for the judge to take an action, changing the status quo, until you give them a reason to do so.


Who cares about that though? I mean just because something is practiced by the court systems that doesn't mean it's correct.

If I understand, you're not just making the assumption "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"... you'r assuming "If it's what's already there, don't replace it".


If someone says, "X policy should be put into place" how is this any different than saying "X statement should be believed"?

You have the BOP on both of those resolutions because you are taking the affirmative. If I say "It's probable God exists" I have the BOP. If the resolution is "Does God exist?" I do not.


Agreed.

Just because something is generally accepted as true, that doesn't mean the burden is on the person who disagrees with it.

That isn't what I said.


Ok, you're saying that when a policy has been implemented, that the person who wants to change or revise it automatically has the burden, correct?


Likewise, just because something is being put into practice, it doesn't follow that the person who disagrees with it should have the burden.

Yes it does. I have no reason to take action to change the status quo until you tell me to. If I am not given them, why on Earth would I vote for the affirmative team?


Because why should we automatically have "Keep going with X until we show we shouldn't keep going with X"? I don't see a reason to have that starting point.

Why should anyone believe that since something is in place, it shoudl automatically continue being practiced? Because "that's the way we've always done it"?

So I don't see how the two are different. If you agree that it works only in policy cases, then you need to show what the property is that makes this different, and show *why* it makes it different.

The status quo is only relevant in policy cases because policy resolutions are the only ones where a status quo exists...


I understand what you're saying. I understand that they are different. I simply don't see how this difference means that they should be treated differently.

I can claim that "It's different!" until I'm blue in the face, but until I actually show *why* it's different, and *why* that even matters, all I've done is blow steam.


Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

During slavery or the Jim Crow era you would have the BOP to prove that we should change those policies. It also would've been a very easy burden to fulfill.

There's an assumption here you're making. It's that if somethign is already the policy, it should continue being the policy. If this is true, then I agree, the person who wants us to believe that another policy should be practiced should have the burden.

But I don't see the point of believing that first premise.

However, I do thank you for clearing up that "status quo" refers to only issues of policy.
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:35:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:33:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:30:52 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:29:11 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:25:34 PM, tbhidc wrote:
It seems to me that there's an unstated premise here...

P1: Whatever is in place, should stay in place until proven otherwise
P2: X policy is in place
C: X policy should stay in place until proven otherwise

And literally *nobody* has defended P1.

That's because it isn't the premise. The premise is that I have no reason to take an action unless I have reason to believe that taking that action would be good. That's where the person wanting to change the squo's burden comes in.


If anything, we should remain agnostic. We have X policy in place. Someone proposes Y policy. We shouldn't think "Oop! Looks like the guy proposing Y policy should have the burden since X is already in place." Rather, we should believe which policy should be in place because of the *arguments* given for them.

Which is why BOP is irrelevant 99% of the time. Like how much of an advantage do you think not having the BOP actually confers? Virtually zero. Again, you have to convince me to take an action as a judge. That's exactly what you are doing with your arguments. When you have the BOP, all that means is that if your arguments are all destroyed I vote Neg.


As far as practical reasons go, I think I agree with you here.

Not because we're already doing it one way.

You should look at my other post on BOP...it's irrelevant 99% of the time.

Where's that?

http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:41:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:35:58 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:33:14 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:30:52 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:29:11 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:25:34 PM, tbhidc wrote:
It seems to me that there's an unstated premise here...

P1: Whatever is in place, should stay in place until proven otherwise
P2: X policy is in place
C: X policy should stay in place until proven otherwise

And literally *nobody* has defended P1.

That's because it isn't the premise. The premise is that I have no reason to take an action unless I have reason to believe that taking that action would be good. That's where the person wanting to change the squo's burden comes in.


If anything, we should remain agnostic. We have X policy in place. Someone proposes Y policy. We shouldn't think "Oop! Looks like the guy proposing Y policy should have the burden since X is already in place." Rather, we should believe which policy should be in place because of the *arguments* given for them.

Which is why BOP is irrelevant 99% of the time. Like how much of an advantage do you think not having the BOP actually confers? Virtually zero. Again, you have to convince me to take an action as a judge. That's exactly what you are doing with your arguments. When you have the BOP, all that means is that if your arguments are all destroyed I vote Neg.


As far as practical reasons go, I think I agree with you here.

I think most of the time when people on DDO vote on BOP it's just a cop out to justify their vote

Not because we're already doing it one way.

You should look at my other post on BOP...it's irrelevant 99% of the time.

Where's that?

http://www.debate.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 5:28:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:23:41 PM, tbhidc wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:20:16 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 5/26/2014 4:09:43 PM, tbhidc wrote:
Just because most people believe something, I don't see how that's reason to show that the BoP is on the other person.

If everyone believed that there's a flying teapot in outer space, and there was literally no arguments to believe this, the burden wouldn't be on me. It would be on the person making the assertion.

So I really don't see how the "status quo" is anything other than "Hey! We all believe X. So you have to disprove it!" Which seems to be argument ad populum et ignoratium.

Et illa est merda equitis.

Status quo doesn't really apply to "we believe something." More that "something is the case and can be changed." When considering that something is changed, you need proof that the proposed change is a good change. I personally think that the status quo needs to be upheld to a certain extent, but the burden is still on changing the status quo for a simple reason: Just because the status quo is bad does not constitute that the proposed change is good.

Can't I just flip that on it's head.

No, not really.

We need reasons to believe that we should continue putting X policy into practice.

?

Only if x policy is being challenged. Otherwise, the affirmative side instigates an entirely new debate for the negative side to affirm. That is that the original debate, for example, is Y change should happen to X policy. To affirm that Y change should happen, you don't need to prove X policy is bad, you need to prove that Y change will improve X policy in some way. If it doesn't improve X policy, then it doesn't matter whether X policy is good or not, Y change should not happen.

Like I said to thett, you need to show exactly *how* the two are different, and why this even matters in the first place. You need to show how they're essentially structurally different and why we can't apply the same reasoning to each.

No, you don't. I'll use words for a different example.

"Resolved: The current income tax system should be replaced by a flat tax."

-To affirm this resolution, you need to show why a flat tax would be better. If you show that the current income tax system is bad, then good for you, but to affirm the resolution, you need to show why the flat tax would be an improvement.

-If we negate that the flat tax is not an improvement but do not negate that the current income tax system is bad, then you are still left with affirming a change that is either as bad or worse than the current income tax system.

-To prove that there's a difference is implied in you arguing for an improvement. If they are not different, there's no improvement. So it comes back to proving that (in this example) the flat tax improves the current income tax system.

Otherwise I could claim, "Hey. Killing a man and killing a woman is different, because men and women are different. So just because killing a man is wrong, that doesn't mean killing a woman is wrong". Yes, killing a man and killing a woman is different. No, it doesn't matter one iota that they're different.

You're getting off the point.

So you need to do two things. (i) Show they're different. (ii) Show why this matters at all.

That's part of proving that it's an improvement. Read above.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 7:06:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:25:34 PM, tbhidc wrote:
It seems to me that there's an unstated premise here...

P1: Whatever is in place, should stay in place until proven otherwise
P2: X policy is in place
C: X policy should stay in place until proven otherwise

And literally *nobody* has defended P1.

(*shots fired*)
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 7:32:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 3:59:56 PM, tbhidc wrote:
So I've often heard people say that since something is status quo, the person who argues against the status quo should have the burden.

But this seems at odds with the idea that the one making the assertion should have the burden.

If I make the assertion "God definitely exists". And someone says: "What?? Show me the evidence." Can I just say, "No. It's status quo that God definitely exists. Show me the evidence he doesn't."?

Or during slavery. If someone were to say, "Blacks are not equal to whites" would I have the burden to disprove this, just because "it's status quo"?

The "status quo v. change" dichotomy is only invoked when we're talking about policy proscriptions, and in those cases the BOP lies more substantively on the debater arguing for change.

In terms of positive claims (claims about what "is" that we can prove, test and falsify), the BOP is on the debater making the claim. Generally, debating "positive" resolutions is stupid for reasons that I talked about in another thread. Hint: google can tell us the answer, so there's no need to debate it. There are some exceptions to this, but they wouldn't really apply to what's likely to appear on this site.

Normative claims are claims of opinion (how you think something "ought" to be, like a moral view of some variety). In that case, the BOP lies wholly on both debaters, in the sense that debaters who debate normative claims share an equal burden. Here's how this works:

Suppose we're debating the resolution "Airmax should adopt a chinchilla."

PRO has to affirm that Airmax should adopt a chinchilla, and offer reasons to support that view. It's a question of opinion, not a question of fact, so there's not going to be evidence that "proves" the claim, per se, but reasons can (and should) nevertheless be offered in support of that position.

CON, likewise, has to negate that Airmax should adopt a chinchilla. What that means is that CON must affirm the logical negation of the resolution. Said another way, CON's burden is to affirm that Airmax should not adopt a chinchilla.

Just as PRO must contend that Airmax should adopt a chinchilla, so too does CON bear an equal responsibility to contend that Airmax should NOT adopt a chinchilla. That's practically how a split burden works. Split burdens only exist in normative resolutions, unless that normative resolution is a policy proscription, in which case he or she who is challenging the status quo (i.e. arguing for change) has the higher burden.
Tsar of DDO