Burden of Proof

I have read countless debates in which people claim their opponent bears the burden of proving their case. I don't think there should be one here. Each person takes an equally weighted side of an issue, PRO and CON. Why should the instigator bear an excess and undue burden? Simply because they started the discussion? If I make a claim, it is your job to refute it equally as much as it is my job to prove it. If I say the constitution is bad you have just as much of an obligation as I do to prove yourself correct.

So, no side in debates on this site bear a burden of proving their case any more than 51%. Anything otherwise is unfounded.

I affirm, "Burden of Proof".

I'm going to assume that my opponent is talking exclusively about the uses of "burden of proof" on this site, since that's what he talks about in his case.

"So, no side in debates on this site bear a burden of proving their case any more than 51%. Anything otherwise is unfounded."

---I don't get what this means. Clarification please?

"Each person takes an equally weighted side of an issue, PRO and CON."

---I really don't think this is true. 'The Latin maxim "necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" explains the rule that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains.' Albert Sweigart extrapolates,

"If I told everyone that I saw a UFO land in my backyard, the burden of proof would be on me to produce evidence that this actually happened because I'm the one making the sensational claim. I don't have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof rests with the unicornians."

Burden of Proof is why we have things such as "innocent until proven guilty". It's not like I can just accuse someone of murder and the sides are "equal". The arguments presented are equally weighed, sure, but the sides definitely aren't equal.

"Why should the instigator bear an excess and undue burden? Simply because they started the discussion?"

---Correct.

"If I make a claim, it is your job to refute it equally as much as it is my job to prove it. If I say the constitution is bad you have just as much of an obligation as I do to prove yourself correct."

---Not really no. If you made the claim that the constitution is bad, I don't necessarily have to prove that the constitution is good, just that the constitution isn't bad, and I win.

If the topic/resolution was 'you should run across the beach', the instigator's job is to give reasons to run across the beach. The contender, by refuting only the instigator's points, has already sufficiently negated the resolution, as there is no longer any reason to run across the beach. There is no "equity"; the contender needs not provide reasons to not run across the beach, just that there is no reason to run across the beach.

Vote CON.

Extend all my arguments: Since they will not be responded to, (my opponent's account has either been deleted or removed) they stand true in the round, therefore I win.

I am a really inefficient space filler.

Extend all my arguments: my opponent's account has either been deleted or removed, therefore they stand true in the round, as a result I win.

I am a really inefficient space filler.