Down With BOP.

I did not say calling someone an idiot means they will always be an idiot. That is a straw man. Apparently you do not understand the Prisoner's Dilemma. I will explain. Two convicts are being interrogated. Each has the choice to either confess to the crime or to lie about it. If they both lie, they'll both get a year in prison. If one of them lies while the other confesses, the liar will get five years and the confessor will get off free. If they both confess, they'll both get two years. As described before, the rational decision is to confess, because no matter what the other person chooses you'll get less time in prison than you would have if you'd lied. However, if both players confess, they'll be worse off collectively than if they'd both lied. The scenario was created by John Nash and is a fundamental pillar of the field of game theory. Because the Prisoner's Dilemma showed that even if people act rationally the best outcome may not be maintained, John Nash is considered as great a contributor to game theory as the creator of the field, John von Neumann. To return to my central point, the Prisoner's Dilemma helps demonstrate that problems in the world are not caused by stupidity. This may seem contrived, but in fact it's highly applicable. For example, take global warming. The solution would be for all countries to prioritize environmentally friendly manufacturing and energy production. In the short run, the economy would take a dip, however. Because the environment is more important, a superficial analysis might conclude that we haven't worked together to solve global warming because everyone is stupid. However, this is a simplistic analysis, and one that doesn't get to the root of the problem. From the point of view of any one country is the following. If every country pitches in, then we can stop global warming, although their economies will take dips. If most countries pitch in but one or two don't, then the countries that didn't help have the best outcome because they don't have to worry about global warming or economic downturns. If nobody pitches in, then the environment will not improve although economies will still be stable. And the worst outcome is if one or two countries pitch in but the rest don't, then the economies of those countries have taken downturns and global warming is still a problem. Thus, it is better for any one country to not pitch in no matter what the other countries do. As I said before, rational behavior can lead to worse outcomes. Attributing the world's problems to "everyone is stupid" is a puerile response. Okay, whatever you're describing is not the burden of proof. For sake of clarity, this is what the burden of proof ACTUALLY is. "the obligation to prove one's assertion" That's all it is! It does not encourage acting before thinking, does not specify forms of evidence that are subjective, is not strictly personal, and has absolutely nothing to do with your example! Also, people cannot getting away with making up evidence because other people tend to check that evidence, and if it turns out that their evidence is fraudulent, they are found out. Additionally, you still have yet to address the following: If burden of proof is unnecessary, I can say I have won this debate and do not need to prove it. If burden of proof is unnecessary, I can assume contradictory claims without needing to prove them. The absence of burden of proof is self-contradictory. In summary, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the burden of proof is, stubbornly defended a useless example, shown a simplistic view of the world's problems, frequently used ad hominem attacks, and not addressed key points against your contentions.