Being Instigator or Being Pro Doesn't Necessarily Give You the Burden of Proof

== INTRODUCTION == Many thanks to my opponent, Freedo, for debating this controversial topic with me. I will be taking the position that the INSTIGATOR (not necessarily Pro) has the burden of proof in a debate. As such, I hope my opponent is aware that he has the burden of proving that the instigator does not necessarily have the BOP (hehe)... good luck! == DEFINITION OF BURDEN OF PROOF == Because neither myself nor my opponent want this debate to be sidetracked by semantics, he has agreed to use an alternate definition of BOP. It essentially says the same thing as what he posted in R1; however, while his noted that the contender need not present any evidence, in fact one might need to present evidence in order to contradict or negate the instigator's evidence. So, in short, here is the revised definition with minor changes: Burden of Proof --> A obligation by a certain party to provide the necessary evidence and/or logic in support of their case. The opposing party is responsible for negating evidence provided by the party with the burden of proof. Perhaps another clarification I should make is that there is a difference between the philosophical burden of proof (which I will explain in this debate; see Asymmetry in the Burden section) and the burden of proof on DDO. What I am assuming my opponent is speaking of in the resolution is in regards to the burden of proof on DDO or official debate type setting (since he said "Pro" and "instigator"). == EXAMPLE == I'll begin by citing an example of the typical way in which the BOP is unfairly shifted or explained here on DDO. For instance, if I am opposed to gay marriage and would like to debate the subject, then the appropriate thing to do would be to create a resolution that reads, "Gay marriage should not be legalized" and take the stance of PRO (and thus accept the burden of proof). However, because debates on DDO can begin with the instigator as CON, then I should not simply create a resolution that reads "Gay marriage," or "Gay marriage should be legalized," choose the Con stance, and then expect my opponent to make a case for me to negate. Instead, I as the instigator of the debate should make the initial argument and accept that there is *something I am trying to prove.* In that way, my opponent accepting the debate's only burden is to prove that I am wrong. == CLARIFICATION == Suppose I was a relativist and created a debate called, "Moral relativism is the proper ethical standard " or something similar. In that debate, I have accepted the BOP - the obligation to provide the necessary evidence that relativism is the proper ethical standard. My opponent's position would be to negate all of the evidence that I have provided; in other words they must prove that I am wrong. They do *not* have the burden of proving another ethical standard as superior to relativism (such as objectivism, nihilism, etc.). All they have the burden of doing is negating my arguments and disproving or finding holes/problems with moral relativism. Of course, if my opponent wanted to state why nihilism or objectivism was BETTER than relativism, of course it would probably help their case and make their argument stronger. However, they do not have the BURDEN of anything other than arguing against what the instigator's claim was. == WHY INSTIGATOR HAS BURDEN == The instigator has the burden quite simply because they are the ones making a statement (either for or against something). Again, if I was against gay marriage and created a debate called "Gay Marriage," and chose the CON side, then whether or not I chose to post first or second I would still have the burden. Starting a debate is someone making a claim even if they post second or as Con. If you make a claim, you have the burden. == ASSYMETRY IN THE BURDEN OF PROOF == What I'm assuming Freedo's argument will be is that there are 2 main factors considered when taking into account who has the burden of proof, and those are: * How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant). * Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative) [1]. While that is entirely correct in a philosophical debate, that standard does not apply to all debates or debates here on DDO. For instance, if we are debating whether or not gay marriage should exist, then technically the one who is PRO should have the burden considering they are making a positive claim that goes against the norm. However, if we consider the morality debate I mentioned earlier ("Moral relativism is the proper ethical standard") then there is no 'norm' to go by since it is still a widely debated subject. In that case, clearly the one who is making such a statement (the instigator) has the burden. == BURDEN OF PROOF FALLACIES == Even if the resolution had read, "Moral relativism" and the instigator chose CON, it would still be their burden to prove why relativism is false, because the instigator is the one making an assertion that it is false. We cannot simply ASSUME that it *is* false, because that would be committing a fallacy: the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. This fallacy -sometimes known as demanding negative proof fallacy - is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion [2]. Therefore, because automatically accepting something would be fallacious, it proves that the one who makes a claim is the one who must prove their claim. You cannot 'assume' a standard in every debate. You can in many debates (i.e. ones related to science, or that have been proven many times over, but not every debate; certainly not the kinds done here on DDO such as where evolution is still being disputed >.< ). == CONCLUSION == In conclusion, it is widely accepted that while BOTH debaters have a burden in any given debate, there is an asymmetrical burden that gives one side of the argument the burden of proving a claim to be true or false. That burden must be the instigator of a debate - the one making the claim. Philosophers agree, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim" [3]. Also, "The burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded" [4]. Thanks again to my opponent and good luck :) == REFERENCES == [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info... [3] Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 [4] Truzzi, Marcello. 1987. On Pseudo-Skepticism. Zetetic Scholar: pp 3-4.