Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who has the burden of proof?

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:06:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 10:04:10 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I have been wondering lately who has the burden of proof in debates? Are there any official rules concerning this?

There is some controversy over this. In general, the instigator has the burden of proof. The instigator makes the claim, so they must warrant it.

Of course, I encourage the instigator to make it clear who has the burden proof in the first round.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:08:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here's the way I see it:

The Instigator has the BoP. If the Instigator establishes the BoP to be elsewhere, then the BoP is wherever the Instigator established it to be, but the default is always on the Instigator. Usually, a reason can be given as to why the BoP is elsewhere.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:35:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In many cases, the Burden of Proof is on the PRO contender, in my opinion. For example:
"God must exist".
The burden would lie with the PRO contender.

Many people have different opinions on this, however, and I am okay with that.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:46:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The way I think of it, the BoP lies with whoever is upholding the positive side of the claim; for example, if it was something like "War is justified", the Pro would have the BoP, but might be the contender; but, if the topic was something like "The death penalty should not be used as a deterrent", then Con would have the BoP to prove that it should be used; that's not to say that the other side doesn't also have a burden; the burden of clash, obviously to conflict with the presented position through logic, evidence, etc. So, in a way, both sides kind of have a BoP.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:53:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Resolutional burden of proof ("The" BoP) is always with instigator.
On top of that, every argument any person makes also has its own burden of proof.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 11:35:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe that the status quo shouldn't be relevant to the resolution being upheld or not.

If the resolution was "Murder is bad" and the instigator was PRO, you'd be saying that the contender had BOP.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 12:01:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 11:35:55 AM, wjmelements wrote:
I believe that the status quo shouldn't be relevant to the resolution being upheld or not.

If the resolution was "Murder is bad" and the instigator was PRO, you'd be saying that the contender had BOP.

That's exactly what I would be saying, IF BoP was based on status quo; like I said, I see the BoP being on the positive side of the claim (Murder is bad), and the BoC (Burden of Clash) being on the negative side of the claim (Murder is not bad).
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 12:09:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am against this "Status Quo Burden of Proof" theory. It does not encourage thinking.

Let's say we have person X who believes H is good. From his world and his culture, H is taught to be a moral thing.

He visits DDO. Everyone else here believes H is bad. From our worlds and our cultures, H is taught to be morally proscribed.

We both buy the SQBoP theory.

He walks into a debate saying H is good and leaves the BoP to the contender.
One of us walks into the debate saying H is bad and leaves the BoP to the X.
Nobody ends up making an argument, and X sees everyone voting against him.

X thinks we're all evil, we think X is evil. Nothing gets done.
No, more accurately, we have made negative progress.

If it's instigator BoP, we can then evaluate whether or not their argument for whatever the topic is. If X makes a case for H, we could then tell him why his arguments for H are invalid, or he could tell us why our arguments against H are invalid.

If you're going to make a debate saying "Killing is immoral" and then take PRO, I expect you to make a case for it. If not, I *will* vote against you. Unconditionally.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

You can never know without looking at the specifics of the debate.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 1:15:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I was going to try to convince you you're wrong, but then I read
especially if he specifies otherwise
And then I realized you were beyond my abilities.

Any extrapolation would break the ToS so I will stop there.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 1:59:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.

Suggesting that the SQ method is valid is suggesting that a PRO making a "Murder is immoral" debate does not have resolutional burden of proof.

I am talking about resolutional burden of proof. In my first post I already said that I recognize that each argument also has its own BoP.

I never said you suggested that. It is my opinion on how a SQBoP debate would unfold.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 3:34:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 1:59:03 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.

Suggesting that the SQ method is valid is suggesting that a PRO making a "Murder is immoral" debate does not have resolutional burden of proof.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily the case; simply because murder is considered immoral in the status quo doesn't mean that Pro wouldn't still have to make a case to prove that murder is immoral. I'm only suggesting the status quo method because, typically, debates will consist of one debater defending the SQ, and the other person attacking it; and obviously, the person arguing against the SQ would have the resolution BoP, as they would have to prove something against what is commonly accepted by society. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.


I am talking about resolutional burden of proof. In my first post I already said that I recognize that each argument also has its own BoP.

I wasn't referring so much to each individual argument, but rather than both sides are obligated to prove their side of the resolution; obviously, they can't just say "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right"; and, I'm sure we agree there.


I never said you suggested that. It is my opinion on how a SQBoP debate would unfold.

And of course, we have a difference of opinion on how things would unfold; it would certainly be worth a test run, though.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 4:39:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 3:34:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:59:03 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.

Suggesting that the SQ method is valid is suggesting that a PRO making a "Murder is immoral" debate does not have resolutional burden of proof.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily the case; simply because murder is considered immoral in the status quo doesn't mean that Pro wouldn't still have to make a case to prove that murder is immoral. I'm only suggesting the status quo method because, typically, debates will consist of one debater defending the SQ, and the other person attacking it; and obviously, the person arguing against the SQ would have the resolution BoP, as they would have to prove something against what is commonly accepted by society. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.

The audience would put resolutional BoP on the person against the SQ, yes.
That's not how it should be, though.

I am talking about resolutional burden of proof. In my first post I already said that I recognize that each argument also has its own BoP.

I wasn't referring so much to each individual argument, but rather than both sides are obligated to prove their side of the resolution; obviously, they can't just say "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right"; and, I'm sure we agree there.

I would disagree with "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right". I would say "because my opponent can't prove his case, he has failed his resolutional BoP, and therefore you vote for me." I am almost always the contender.

There are three possibilities at the end of any debate. Instigator has won, Contender has won, or nothing has really gone anywhere. I view it as something like a boxing ring: the instigator started a fight saying "I will win", the contender steps into the ring saying "Let's see about that". The instigator only wins if he fulfills his statement - that he has WON. A "nothing has really gone anywhere" is NOT a win. The contender does not necessarily step in saying "No, I will win" though they can certainly take that choice.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 4:51:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 4:39:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 3:34:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:59:03 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.

Suggesting that the SQ method is valid is suggesting that a PRO making a "Murder is immoral" debate does not have resolutional burden of proof.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily the case; simply because murder is considered immoral in the status quo doesn't mean that Pro wouldn't still have to make a case to prove that murder is immoral. I'm only suggesting the status quo method because, typically, debates will consist of one debater defending the SQ, and the other person attacking it; and obviously, the person arguing against the SQ would have the resolution BoP, as they would have to prove something against what is commonly accepted by society. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.

The audience would put resolutional BoP on the person against the SQ, yes.
That's not how it should be, though.

Why not? If someone is arguing against a commonly accepted belief, it seems only natural that they ought to have the burden of proof on that matter. I'm not saying that the belief in question is correct, but rather that, since it's generally accepted as correct by the public at large, that the person in question would have to be able to prove otherwise.

I am talking about resolutional burden of proof. In my first post I already said that I recognize that each argument also has its own BoP.

I wasn't referring so much to each individual argument, but rather than both sides are obligated to prove their side of the resolution; obviously, they can't just say "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right"; and, I'm sure we agree there.

I would disagree with "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right". I would say "because my opponent can't prove his case, he has failed his resolutional BoP, and therefore you vote for me." I am almost always the contender.

There are three possibilities at the end of any debate. Instigator has won, Contender has won, or nothing has really gone anywhere. I view it as something like a boxing ring: the instigator started a fight saying "I will win", the contender steps into the ring saying "Let's see about that". The instigator only wins if he fulfills his statement - that he has WON. A "nothing has really gone anywhere" is NOT a win. The contender does not necessarily step in saying "No, I will win" though they can certainly take that choice.

Well, that's the thing though; just because the instigator doesn't win doesn't mean that the contender automatically wins by default. I understand the boxing ring approach completely, but what I'm saying is that the contender would also have to legitimately prove his own case; otherwise, it would be a tie, obviously; I'm assuming we can agree there, too?
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 5:03:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 1:15:52 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I was going to try to convince you you're wrong, but then I read
especially if he specifies otherwise
And then I realized you were beyond my abilities.

Any extrapolation would break the ToS so I will stop there.

So you're going to outright say that in any debate, ever, the Instigator will have [full] Burden of Proof?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 5:04:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 4:51:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 4:39:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 3:34:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:59:03 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.

Suggesting that the SQ method is valid is suggesting that a PRO making a "Murder is immoral" debate does not have resolutional burden of proof.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily the case; simply because murder is considered immoral in the status quo doesn't mean that Pro wouldn't still have to make a case to prove that murder is immoral. I'm only suggesting the status quo method because, typically, debates will consist of one debater defending the SQ, and the other person attacking it; and obviously, the person arguing against the SQ would have the resolution BoP, as they would have to prove something against what is commonly accepted by society. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.

The audience would put resolutional BoP on the person against the SQ, yes.
That's not how it should be, though.

Why not? If someone is arguing against a commonly accepted belief, it seems only natural that they ought to have the burden of proof on that matter. I'm not saying that the belief in question is correct, but rather that, since it's generally accepted as correct by the public at large, that the person in question would have to be able to prove otherwise.

Ad Populum fallacy.

I am talking about resolutional burden of proof. In my first post I already said that I recognize that each argument also has its own BoP.

I wasn't referring so much to each individual argument, but rather than both sides are obligated to prove their side of the resolution; obviously, they can't just say "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right"; and, I'm sure we agree there.

I would disagree with "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right". I would say "because my opponent can't prove his case, he has failed his resolutional BoP, and therefore you vote for me." I am almost always the contender.

There are three possibilities at the end of any debate. Instigator has won, Contender has won, or nothing has really gone anywhere. I view it as something like a boxing ring: the instigator started a fight saying "I will win", the contender steps into the ring saying "Let's see about that". The instigator only wins if he fulfills his statement - that he has WON. A "nothing has really gone anywhere" is NOT a win. The contender does not necessarily step in saying "No, I will win" though they can certainly take that choice.

Well, that's the thing though; just because the instigator doesn't win doesn't mean that the contender automatically wins by default. I understand the boxing ring approach completely, but what I'm saying is that the contender would also have to legitimately prove his own case; otherwise, it would be a tie, obviously; I'm assuming we can agree there, too?

No, I believe the contender wins by default.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 5:06:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 5:03:00 PM, iamadragon wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:15:52 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I was going to try to convince you you're wrong, but then I read
especially if he specifies otherwise
And then I realized you were beyond my abilities.

Any extrapolation would break the ToS so I will stop there.

So you're going to outright say that in any debate, ever, the Instigator will have [full] Burden of Proof?

I just realized that there's these types of debates on DDO that are like, Instigator starts a debate but then lets his opponent choose the resolution and side that he wants, and other debates like that.

My statement was supposed to be about debates where the instigator starts off with the resolution that the instigator and the contender WILL be debating against.

I'm sorry if anything was misunderstood.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 6:05:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 5:04:17 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 4:51:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 4:39:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 3:34:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:59:03 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.

Suggesting that the SQ method is valid is suggesting that a PRO making a "Murder is immoral" debate does not have resolutional burden of proof.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily the case; simply because murder is considered immoral in the status quo doesn't mean that Pro wouldn't still have to make a case to prove that murder is immoral. I'm only suggesting the status quo method because, typically, debates will consist of one debater defending the SQ, and the other person attacking it; and obviously, the person arguing against the SQ would have the resolution BoP, as they would have to prove something against what is commonly accepted by society. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.

The audience would put resolutional BoP on the person against the SQ, yes.
That's not how it should be, though.

Why not? If someone is arguing against a commonly accepted belief, it seems only natural that they ought to have the burden of proof on that matter. I'm not saying that the belief in question is correct, but rather that, since it's generally accepted as correct by the public at large, that the person in question would have to be able to prove otherwise.

Ad Populum fallacy.

Yes. I'm aware of that. Notice the part of my last post where I explicitly state that "I'm not saying that the belief in question is correct". I'm AWARE of the ad populum fallacy; I'm simply saying that, the status quo, for better for worse, is generally formed by the society in question.

I am talking about resolutional burden of proof. In my first post I already said that I recognize that each argument also has its own BoP.

I wasn't referring so much to each individual argument, but rather than both sides are obligated to prove their side of the resolution; obviously, they can't just say "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right"; and, I'm sure we agree there.

I would disagree with "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right". I would say "because my opponent can't prove his case, he has failed his resolutional BoP, and therefore you vote for me." I am almost always the contender.

There are three possibilities at the end of any debate. Instigator has won, Contender has won, or nothing has really gone anywhere. I view it as something like a boxing ring: the instigator started a fight saying "I will win", the contender steps into the ring saying "Let's see about that". The instigator only wins if he fulfills his statement - that he has WON. A "nothing has really gone anywhere" is NOT a win. The contender does not necessarily step in saying "No, I will win" though they can certainly take that choice.

Well, that's the thing though; just because the instigator doesn't win doesn't mean that the contender automatically wins by default. I understand the boxing ring approach completely, but what I'm saying is that the contender would also have to legitimately prove his own case; otherwise, it would be a tie, obviously; I'm assuming we can agree there, too?

No, I believe the contender wins by default.

But in that situation, the contender doesn't really have to do much of anything; if the instigator fails at the burden, the contender at least has to present a proven case for his or her side; he can't just say "My opponent didn't fulfill my burden and here's why", and win the round; at that point, it's not a debate, because ideas aren't actually conflicting.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 6:15:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 6:05:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 5:04:17 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 4:51:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 4:39:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 3:34:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:59:03 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 1:23:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:21:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/24/2009 12:17:52 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I agree with both of Cody's posts. This status quo thing is relative, but essentially, it boils down to whoever is making a claim. That person isn't always PRO, nor is it always the instigator.

It is always the instigator.

I never said the Status Quo method was the right way to do it. I said it was A SINGLE way to think about it.

And yes, it's not always the instigator; each side has their own relative burden of proof.

Even in the status quo method, I'm not saying that the PRO wouldn't have to make a case defending that murder is immoral; in fact, I don't EVER recall having suggested that.

Suggesting that the SQ method is valid is suggesting that a PRO making a "Murder is immoral" debate does not have resolutional burden of proof.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily the case; simply because murder is considered immoral in the status quo doesn't mean that Pro wouldn't still have to make a case to prove that murder is immoral. I'm only suggesting the status quo method because, typically, debates will consist of one debater defending the SQ, and the other person attacking it; and obviously, the person arguing against the SQ would have the resolution BoP, as they would have to prove something against what is commonly accepted by society. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.

The audience would put resolutional BoP on the person against the SQ, yes.
That's not how it should be, though.

Why not? If someone is arguing against a commonly accepted belief, it seems only natural that they ought to have the burden of proof on that matter. I'm not saying that the belief in question is correct, but rather that, since it's generally accepted as correct by the public at large, that the person in question would have to be able to prove otherwise.

Ad Populum fallacy.

Yes. I'm aware of that. Notice the part of my last post where I explicitly state that "I'm not saying that the belief in question is correct". I'm AWARE of the ad populum fallacy; I'm simply saying that, the status quo, for better for worse, is generally formed by the society in question.

Then, are you trying to tell me I can't see this is happening?

I'm not interested in what "society" believes is right. I'm interested in what YOU believe is right. I'm interested in what INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE believe are right. If you happen to believe what "society" believes is right, then by all means, please tell me why they are right. But I am not interested in you continually telling me that SQ is how some people work. Because I am completely aware of that.

I don't care what does happen. I care about what should happen.
That's what the topic of this thread is, yes?

Oh hmm maybe it isn't. "Who has the burden of proof" is a factual confirmation...

No, it can go both ways.
So, now I tell you I'm not interested in what is happening, and am interested in what should.


I am talking about resolutional burden of proof. In my first post I already said that I recognize that each argument also has its own BoP.

I wasn't referring so much to each individual argument, but rather than both sides are obligated to prove their side of the resolution; obviously, they can't just say "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right"; and, I'm sure we agree there.

I would disagree with "because my opponent can't prove his case, I must be right". I would say "because my opponent can't prove his case, he has failed his resolutional BoP, and therefore you vote for me." I am almost always the contender.

There are three possibilities at the end of any debate. Instigator has won, Contender has won, or nothing has really gone anywhere. I view it as something like a boxing ring: the instigator started a fight saying "I will win", the contender steps into the ring saying "Let's see about that". The instigator only wins if he fulfills his statement - that he has WON. A "nothing has really gone anywhere" is NOT a win. The contender does not necessarily step in saying "No, I will win" though they can certainly take that choice.

Well, that's the thing though; just because the instigator doesn't win doesn't mean that the contender automatically wins by default. I understand the boxing ring approach completely, but what I'm saying is that the contender would also have to legitimately prove his own case; otherwise, it would be a tie, obviously; I'm assuming we can agree there, too?

No, I believe the contender wins by default.

But in that situation, the contender doesn't really have to do much of anything; if the instigator fails at the burden, the contender at least has to present a proven case for his or her side; he can't just say "My opponent didn't fulfill my burden and here's why", and win the round; at that point, it's not a debate, because ideas aren't actually conflicting.

Yes, the contender "doesn't really have to do much of anything" by default. Their job is "just simply" to take down the instigator. Which, make no mistake, can be pretty d*mned hard given some topics and debaters.

I do not understand how "ideas aren't actually conflicting".

To argue against an idea you must use other ideas.
If instigator makes a case, contender must use ideas to counter.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 6:30:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There's always the method of using a certain value, e.g. "By default, everybody should be allowed to make a choice unless there are reasons against it," so that your opponent either argues against that value or accepts the BoP.
Danielle
Posts: 23,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 7:07:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I didn't read this entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating someone but the BoP issue *really* bugs me around here, so here goes:

I believe that the INSTIGATOR of a debate has the BoP. The instigator usually words the resolution so that they are Pro. For instance, if I am for the legalization of gay marriage, I might start a debate with the resolution reading "Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States" and assume the Pro position. As such, it is my burden to defend the resolution.

Now if I disagree that gay marriage should be legalized, it's dumb for me to create a debate that reads "Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States," assume the CON position, and then say that Pro should produce a round first and that it is Pro's burden.

NO!!! WRONG!!!

Why not re-word the resolution to read, "Gay marriage should not be legalized in the United States" and take the Pro position to THAT? That way it is the INSTIGATORS BURDEN (why create a debate and put the burden on someone else?!) and you are not being a sissy and providing an argument first as Pro.

If you instigate a debate but assume the position of CON, that's fine, but keep in mind that it's still YOUR burden and you should post first.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 7:15:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 7:07:05 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I didn't read this entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating someone but the BoP issue *really* bugs me around here, so here goes:

I believe that the INSTIGATOR of a debate has the BoP. The instigator usually words the resolution so that they are Pro. For instance, if I am for the legalization of gay marriage, I might start a debate with the resolution reading "Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States" and assume the Pro position. As such, it is my burden to defend the resolution.

Now if I disagree that gay marriage should be legalized, it's dumb for me to create a debate that reads "Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States," assume the CON position, and then say that Pro should produce a round first and that it is Pro's burden.

NO!!! WRONG!!!

Why not re-word the resolution to read, "Gay marriage should not be legalized in the United States" and take the Pro position to THAT? That way it is the INSTIGATORS BURDEN (why create a debate and put the burden on someone else?!) and you are not being a sissy and providing an argument first as Pro.

If you instigate a debate but assume the position of CON, that's fine, but keep in mind that it's still YOUR burden and you should post first.

I love you~
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 1:14:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A debate resolution is a call to action for the audience to affirm the resolution. The default is inaction. If the resolution fails, it means there was insufficient grounds presented to adopt it. For this reason, Pro should always bear the burden of proof. It's Pro's job to convince the audience to affirm the resolution. If Pro does not make a prima facia case, then the resolution fails even if Con says nothing.

The situation is similar to a trial in which the prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant guilty. If the prosecutor fails, it doesn't mean the defendant was proved innocent. It means that the evidence of guilt was insufficient, so the defendant is "not guilty."

Traditionally in debates, Pro gets to pick the topic or the particular case within the scope of the topic. ddo has the odd option of allowing a debate to be instigated as Con. I think ddo would be better off without this option, as anyone instigating a debate can always phrase the resolution as a Pro position against something. The one use I can think of for Con instigating is for academic debaters to practice being Con against a variety of Pro cases. It would be better to give that up so that Pro has to present an opening argument and will clearly bear the burden of proof. Often enough, in debates instigated by Con the resolution is unclear because there is no opening argument that implicitly defines the resolution.

I think it is okay for the instigator to make transferring the burden of proof a condition for accepting the debate. Since no one is required to accept a debate, the person accepting should be happy to debate under the conditions accepted.