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

== RESPONSES == "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. " >> My opponent is making the moralistic fallacy [1]. She says "should" and then derives what is from this. I agree that an instigator "should" not take the CON stance in order to divert the burden of proof(hypocritical of me, of course) but that doesn't mean they aren't actually diverting the burden of proof. "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. " >> The instigator is not always the one making the "claim", even though they should. "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. " >> Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does. "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. " >> Actually, conventional knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Whether the statement is positive or negative has everything to do with it. "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 >. < ). " >> I find this argument quite funny because my own entire argument is based around the committing of this fallacy. I turn her argument right back at her, but without the flaw which makes it reversed. It all comes down to positive and negative statements. To say that someone who is making a negative statement has the burden of proof(which would be the case if instigator picked CON) would be demanding proof for a negative, which commits the fallacy. == ARGUMENT == The burden of proof lies upon the one making a positive assertion. To say that something is true is a positive. (example: God exists) To say that something is untrue is a negative. (example: God does not exist) The title of the debate is either going to be a positive of negative statement. To be PRO is to agree with the title. To be CON is to disagree with the title. If the title is positive and you are PRO then you agree with the positive statement. If the title is negative and you are PRO then you agree with a negative statement. If the title is positive and you are CON then you disagree with a positive statement. If the title is negative and you are CON then you disagree with a negative statement. 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 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. == EXAMPLE == I do have one debate where there is a good reason I was the instigator and chose CON. The title of the debate is "There are things more important than reason" [2]. The reason why I chose CON is because the title is a quote from my opponent, whom I directly challenged. I wanted my opponent to defend their statement. The contender obviously has the burden of proof here. == SOURCES == 1. . http://www.logicalfallacies.info... 2. . http://www.debate.org...