Burden of Proof

Pro has forfeited Round 2. I will now present my own arguments, while also pointing out the flaws in Pro's own opening remarks. Before doing so though, I believe it's important to accurately define what the "Burden of Proof" is. There are several similar definitions depending on whether this is relating to pursuits of science, or formal debate such as Lincoln-Douglas (LD). I will present both definitions to paint a clear picture of what the Burden of Proof is and who it is assigned to within the given definitions. DefinitionsScientific Context - Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin): "The obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match." [1]Formal Debate - Burden of Proof: "A debater who offers an argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, the affirmative team has the burden to prove the resolution true while the negative has the burden to prove the resolution false." [2]There is another key term that plays a vital role in all of this, that is the "Burden of Clash".Burden of Clash: In a formal argument, the primary arguer must establish a prima facie case (that stands on its own) and thus carries the burden of proof. The opponent only needs to show that the case is not proven to win the argument and thus may well focus on attacking and disproving the given case. An alternative case may also be given, but is not needed. Refuting is also known as rebuttal, the burden of rebuttal, or the burden of clash. [3]Arguments I. What the defintions tell us about the Burden of ProofIf we look at the defintions given, we can clearly see three things - 1) The burden of proof falls upon the person instigating the argument. 2) There is another burden of proof that falls upon the opposing side in the form of the burden of clash. 3) A key distinction between the burden of proof and the burden of rebuttals (clash) exists. That distinction is that both sides have unique burdens that need to be met in order to win the debate. I would argue that instead of the Burden of Proof *always* being on both Pro and Con, there are in fact two different Burdens that belong to each opposing side within the debate. Furthermore, the only side that truly has the *Burden of Proof* is the affirmative side, or the side instigating the argument, as evidenced by the given definitions I provided above. II. Exceptions to the ruleWhile I am not aware of any exceptions in formal debate, in DDO debates there are some debates where the instigator and challenger agree to a split BOP. Even with that fact known, it does nothing to support Pro's position that the Burden of Proof is *always* on Pro and Con. Rather, what it shows is that *sometimes* the Burden of Proof is on Pro and Con. Always =/= Sometimes. Hence, even with the exceptions taken into consideration, Pro's position is still lacking any sufficient evidence which would serve to validate such a position as his. Since there really isn't any more arguments to be made, I will now move into my rebuttals. Rebuttals"IN A DEBATE, BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON BOTH PRO AND CON."This is not an accurate claim from Pro. I've provided evidence in arguments I & II showing that *the* burden of proof is not always on both pro and con. Rather, there is *a* burden of proof on the instigator or affirmative side and *a* burden of clash on the opposing side. Pro has simply misinterpreted these individual burdens to be one giant burden, when in fact that is not the case at all. "PRO must prove he is right. CON Must PROVE something else is right."This is another incorrect claim from Pro. Con doesn't need to prove that *something else* is right. All that Con needs to do is show that *Pro* isn't right. Con certainly has the option to present an alternative case, but it is not a necessity in most cases. On top of this, the fact that Pro and Con have two different duties serves to strengthen the definitions I gave which show that those individual burdens are exactly that - individual. "Being Con in a debate means you must provide a contrary belief and defend it."False. I've already shown why this statement is false (see: above). At this point I would just like to point out that all of these claims made by Pro have no supporting evidence themselves. I've already given mine. "Con does not just have the right to sit back and deny your evidence. He must Prove a contrary Thesis to Pro."This is another misguided claim by Pro. It's the very fact that it's a contrary thesis that makes it an individual burden. Additionally, as long as the denial of Pro's evidence is backed by its own valid support, that actually is all that is needed. Please see the above defintions to verify my claim. "An Idiot thinks they can have a debate and not share Burden of Proof."This statement from Pro doesn't actually warrant a response. For the sake of covering all bases though, I'll entertain it. The only place where I've ever actually seen a shared BOP is here, on DDO. While I don't have alot of formal debate experience myself, I am familiar enough to understand the differences in burdens and how they are applied to each side within a debate. At this point, I would really like to see a legitamite source from Pro that claims that every debate *must have* or *always has* a shared burden of proof. In conclusion,I've now presented two arguments negating Pro's position within this debate, which serve to showcase why my position is the correct one here. Additionally, I've provided rebuttals to each claim presented by Pro in his opening round. I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you. Sources[1] http://rationalwiki.org...[2] http://debate-central.ncpa.org...[3] http://changingminds.org...