Onus Probandi (Burden of Proof) Does NOT EXIST

The person making a claim has "Burden of Proof".A default position is assigned by the system on is working in."So I will start by pointing out two things; firstly, there is only one standard of onus probandi" - BeasttFalse. Articles on "Burden of proof" are divided into areas of Legal, Philosophical and Scientific.[1] Even in the legal sense there are further delineations of "Burden of proof" [2] And the Yale paper describes the preponderance of evidence, and other factors my opponent keeps reciting, and very thoroughly explains that the burden of proof does not necessarily rest with the pleading party. It goes into detail to explain that the default position is a presumed or assumed position.I listed to such assumptions1. Innocent till proven guilty or2. Guilty till proven innocent.My opponent wants the reader to think this is a failed logic, but I am not describing the same legal systems. In the US the former is the default position. It is an assumption established by the law. Which is why my opponent keeps reciting about evidence against this default position. But notice this is not a universally default position. In other countries the suspect is presumed guilty. And that would be the default position.My opponent wants to say that the default position is the obvious position but this is not the case. The default position is an assumption established by the system one is working in.Legal Burden of proof is not philosophical burden of proof. The default positions in Philosophy and logic are different. In philosophy a self referencing claim is assumed true."I think", "I feel", "I believe" Are self referencing claims. If someone says "I believe a platypus does not exist", then you can only persuade them to change their mind by showing a platypus exists. You can not prove false that this is what they believe. Just the object of their believe is invalid.So the system in which the negotiation or the debate is an important factor in determining who has "Burden of Proof". There are no obvious default positions. Let's tae an example based in physical reality.I claim, "there is no life outside of earth" My reasoning for this is that there is no evidence there is life outside of earth. According to my opponent's reasoning I hold the default position based on that is is a negative statement and there is a lack of evidence confirming the alternative. Further more I can claim this is obvious. Unless is it is a self referencing claim as I noted earlier in a philosophical debate this is not a Default position.My opponent my rebuttal with a statistic. But what are statistics? They are descriptions of odds. They are inductive, not deductive. If I have a coin and I say it is a fair coin. I flip it 5 times and all appear heads. Will you doubt it has a tail side? If I flip it 10 times in a row, will you doubt it then? It could still be a fair coin and you will not have any 100% certain evidence that it is not. If my opponent intellectually thinks odds or chances are evidence for a certainty than the next fighter that has 10-1 odds of winning my opponent should bet his whole fortune on. If he were intellectually honest.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://basic.cc-courthelp.org...[3] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu... - "Burden of proof" or in Latin, onus probandi, is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it." Again to refer to where I say the person making a claim has the BOP. This is the case for the 3 examples my opponent offers. It is not the doubters responsibility to make a convincing case for the opposing resolution. This should be obvious to everyone.The website, http://logical-critical-thinking.com... , That my opponent links to actually identifies the fallacy he constantly make in regards to "God does not exist", Leprechauns, faeries, etc..It states, "The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false". This is the case I have been making with him the entire time of our exchanges in and out of this debate. To assert something requires a justification for that claim. A Theist who claims, "God exists" has a BOP or reasoning to why this claim should be accepted as likely or true. The reverse is equally the case. An Atheist who asserts, "God does not exist" must present some reasoning or justification. If either claim it is because the other side is not proven, then they both are committing a fallacy of shifting the burden. My opponent commits this fallacy. And still does not admit he is wrong for doing so.My opponent even admits this, "the person making the claim holds the burden of proof. The person denying the claims holds no burden of proof" for rock pulverization but not for the claims he makes. No the claims he makes are the "Obvious" or default claims. And therefore he doesn't have BOP. If he is making a claim he does.What is obvious but an appeal to consensus. How about the day when it was "obvious" the sun circled the earth. Or when it was obvious the earth was flat. A sea captain counters the flat earth with "It is obvious the earth is round, I see it's round shadow in the moon". Obvious is even worse than confusing what a default position is. Because obvious is claiming something is true because it is thought so by many people. Or and some of my opponents remarks show this. Is he feels his own thoughts on a subject are obvious and therefore the default position. Beastt has built a castle out of not defending his views because he asserts they are the obvious default positions.No sir default positions are established by the rules of the system one is negotiating in.I did a Google search for the exact word combination "default evidence". And due to the lack of evidence for anything like that, I deem my opponents arguments based on such "evidence" is his own crazy idea.To the resolution:If I lose this debate than clearly even a negative statement must hold some kind of BOP.But does BOP really exist? My opponent has mixed and matched different processes that have all been labeled as "Burden of Proof". But his own words in the forums says there is no such thing unless speaking about Math or Alcohol. Now he contends it is a process in existence.But what is this "default evidence" for the "Burden of Proof" he points out? Writings from people I have never heard of. How am I to know these so called authors, really did write these words describing this process? Are there scholars that will confirm they saw the existence of BOP?What about processes that obviously do exist, like walking and math? Well when someone walks they go from point A to point B. There is an obvious change in the persons state. My opponent calls BOP a process but then concludes his responsibility for his claims remains unchanged and nonexistent?In Math 2 different people can calculate 2+2x4 and come up with the same answer using the same process. But my opponent wants to come into a debate using a twisted applied Legal Burden of Proof for Philosophical issues. When the answer for Legal and philosophical BOP are different?No clearly this thing, "Burden of Proof" is a made up system of rules that my opponent has created so that his claims of what ever he thinks are instantly "True" and need no defending.