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

== ON THE MORALISTIC FALLACY == "It's important to note that I am not utilizing the moralistic fallacy. What the moralistic fallacy actually says is that because something is MORALLY wrong, it could not be a part of human nature. This is obviously false; just because everyone *ought* to be treated equally doesn't mean that everyone *is* treated equally. So, what the moralistic fallacy does is explain that just because things should be one way does not mean that it is one way. " >> The Moralistic fallacy does not only apply to human nature. I provided a link for the definition of the moralistic fallacy. I'll post it here anyway. Moralistic fallacy: The moralistic fallacy is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy moves from descriptions of how things are to statements of how things ought to be, the moralistic fallacy does the reverse. The moralistic fallacy moves from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be. This, sadly, is a fallacy; sometimes things aren't as they ought to be. My opponent did indeed commit the fallacy by stating this: "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. " >> What "should" be done is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is about how things ARE. == ON THE INSTIGATOR ALWAYS MAKING A CLAIM == "the instigator is undoubtedly making a claim in every single scenario. " >> Oh really? Even the debate where I quoted my opponent and asked them to defend his own statement? Even in debates with titles that are demands asking the contender to prove something? I don't think so. == ON POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASSERTIONS == "This argument is false. One has the burden of proof whether they are making either a positive or negative claim; only the agnostic position requires no burden. " >> Here, is my statement again: "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does" Here is my observation; That specific statement which I made is correct and was not refuted by my opponents reply that I find quite silly to say the least. But in the larger context both my opponent and I were wrong. I find it silly for two reasons. Firstly, notice that in my statement which she declared to be wrong because "One has the burden of proof whether they are making either a positive or negative claim; only the agnostic position requires no burden. " I never stated anything about the negative or agnostic stance. I stated that making a positive claim produces a burden of proof, which she actually confirms in her supposed refutation. Secondly, in my statement I declared that simply making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. My opponent said this is false, so making a statement does produce a burden of proof. She then goes on to say that an agnostic statement does not produce a burden of proof. A clear contradiction. But I'll cut her some slack; outside of this statement I did declare that a negative claim produced no burden of proof, I was wrong. So I will make a reformed version of my primary argument to account for this. == REFORMED ARGUMENT == There are three types of statements: Positive (example: Elves exists) Negative (example: Elves do not exist) Agnostic. (example: Prove that Elves exists) Positive statements produce a burden of proof. Negative statements also produce a burden of proof. Positive statements produce more of a burden of proof than negative statements. Agnostic statements produce no burden of proof. To say that someone generally has the burden of proof within a debate is to say they have the most burden of proof. If the title is positive and you are PRO then you do have the burden of proof. If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof. If the title is agnostic and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof. If the title is positive and you are CON then you do not have the burden of proof. If the title is negative and you are CON then you do have the burden of proof. If the title is agnostic and you are CON then you do have the burden of proof. == 2ND ARGUMENT == Awhaw! But there is a twist! You see there are exceptions within this generality. Even if you somehow dismiss my 1st argument there is no escaping this one. Rule of Contract: Whenever a contender accepts a debate they are accepting to play by the rules put forth by the Instigator in the first round. I have seen many times where the Instigator chooses to custom making the rules regarding burden of proof. Most of the times when this happens the instigator is deciding for both debaters to have an equal amount of burden of proof or likewise ignore that it even exists. IN-FACT! This very debate is a perfect example. See first round. This is legitimate because both debaters accept it. Philosophical burden of proof may not work this way but DDO burden of proof obviously does (as my opponent stated is the kind we are talking about). There is no denying this.