It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate

I shall keep my case short, because I simply need to provide an example where the burden of proof is shared. I firstly wish to point out that a shared burden of proof is equal to a partitioned burden of proof, where both sides have a burden of proof which they need to resolve. This is because an equal burden on both sides is impossible to calculate. Thus, the burden of proof needs to be roughly similar.Secondly, I wish to question the definition of a debate needing exactly two individuals or teams. British Parliamentary debating has four teams, and the example I wish to use for debating can have between five and twenty. This does not stop the debates' formality and competitiveness.Now, the example I wish to bring about is European Youth Parliamentary Debating. "Today the EYP is one of the largest European platforms for political debate, intercultural encounters, political educational work and the exchange of ideas among young people in Europe. The EYP consists of a network of 35 European associations and organisations in which thousands of young people are active in a voluntary capacity."[1] (emphasis not added).Furthermore, I wish to state that a debate resolution is definable as that which is being debated.Now I want to bring up one of the resolutions that I am currently debating. Because of the size of the documents in the formal debates, I will only post a few lines of it here....4. Realises that modern nuclear power does not threaten the safety of the EU.5. Constructs a nuclear power plant in Marseilles will produce adequate electricity for the entire province.6. Desires that the EU become a net exporter of energy in the future....From that short extract of the EU motion, we can see that one who presents motion point 4 as true does not have the burden of proof, but has the burden of rejoinder, and anyone attempting to refute it has the burden of rejoinder. However, whoever promotes point 5 has the burden of proof. In addition, in these debates the outcome is not in the normal sense of someone is right and someone is wrong, but an attempt to recraft the motion to get a stronger one, and a motion that is more productive and agreed upon. The winner is the one who is voted as being most instrumental in the crafting of the resolution. This shows that the burden of proof can easily be shared: One of the debaters may question one of the points in the resolution, and attempts its removal/change, which gives them the burden of proof in that case. However, another debater may question another part of the motion, which gives them the burden of proof in the separate case, sharing out the burden of proof. For example, Group A may support motion point 4 (realises that...) while stating point 5 is wrong. Group B may support point 5, but question point 4. In this case, the burden of proof is shared.Regarding my opponent's case, his comes down to "it will be messy", but this predicates that there has to be a 'winner' in a debate, and that winner is the one who argues best. May I point out that if CON, in a World Championship Debate, makes a debate into a tautology, they instantly lose. "The motion for the semi-finals of the 1995 World Schools Debating Championships in Cardiff was ‘This House believes that extremism is the catalyst for progress’. One of the proposition teams was concerned that it might have to defend ‘bad extremists’ (e.g. the IRA), so tried to limit the debate to ‘good extremists’ (e.g. the South African anti-apartheid movement) by defining ‘extremism’ in terms of positive change. The Proposition defined ‘extremism’ as radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society, so ended up arguing that radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society help cause the advancement of society (progress). A tautology becomes a circular argument and leaves the Opposition nothing to debate. In this case, the Opposition first speaker pointed out that the definition was tautological, and her team won the debate unanimously."Therefore, the burden of proof is an additional, but ultimately unneeded part of a debate, and is unnecessary to decide who should win. Also, I wish to present one last possible debating proposal which can involve a shared burden of proof, even if I accept his definitions:"(thbh) Japan should abandon nuclear energy and develop wind energy"In this debate, PRO has to argue that Japan should abandon nuclear energy, then defend wind energy. CON has to defend nuclear energy, then argue against wind energy. In this case, the burden of proof is shared.Thank you.1 - www.eypej.org2 - http://www.schoolsdebate.com...