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

|| Introduction || Thanks, Freedo, for the great debate so far. I hope you realize you're not fooling anybody by just c/p my arguments and then responding to them all with one sentence lol. Anyway thanks for the response and I look forward to a great final round! Hopefully I can clear up some stuff you mentioned regarding fallacies... || 1. Moralistic Fallacy || FREEDO ----> "My opponent is making the moralistic fallacy. She says 'should' and then derives what is from this." 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. Citing this fallacy is wrong here for two reasons. First, this fallacy intrinsically applies to ethics; it was a term coined specifically to deal with ethical guidelines [1]. Second, since we're debating who SHOULD have the burden of proof, then saying it *should* be one way but *isn't* one way (what the moralistic fallacy says) is only helping my case. Here I have been saying how things SHOULD be (who should have the burden) -- I'm not saying that things ARE that way (clearly they're not). In fact I've cited how DDO procedure is often wrong. Still, the instigator SHOULD have the burden. So in short, this fallacy/argument is entirely irrelevant. FREEDO ----> "I agree that an instigator 'should' not take the CON stance in order to divert the burden of proof, but that doesn't mean they aren't actually diverting the burden of proof." It seems my opponent is trying to say that just because someone accepts the CON stance doesn't mean they're intrinsically shifting the burden of proof. You'll notice that I never said that this is what the instigator as CON would do. Instead, I explained how even if the instigator chose the CON stance, and posted first and/or second, the instigator would still have the burden. || 2. Instigator Has Burden Because They're Making A Claim || FREEDO ----> "The instigator is not always the one making the 'claim,' even though they should." There are 2 mistakes with this argument. First, my opponent acknowledges that the instigator SHOULD be making a claim (thus I'm assuming accept the burden) which completely negates his point regarding the moralistic fallacy (which I just explained). Second, the instigator is undoubtedly making a claim in every single scenario. For instance, if I am against gay marriage and I start the debate as CON with the resolution reading "Gay Marriage," then clearly I am making the claim that I am against gay marriage (or that I will be arguing gay marriage is wrong). In debate, the instigator is making a claim by creating a resolution and choosing a side to argue for or against that resolution. I thought I explained this in the last round; if my opponent still does not understand then I invite him to describe how exactly an instigator is not making a claim and I'll address his argument in the next round. || 3. Positive Statements || FREEDO ----> "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does... Whether the statement is positive or negative has everything to do with it." 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. "It is only when one has an opinion and argues this opinion publicly that the burden of proof takes effect... Once a party begins to form a belief or makes a claim, the burden of proof is initiated, and that burden is often not symmetrical to the opposing belief or claim" [2]. So, for example, if you start a debate saying "Sants Clause exists" which is a positive claim, then you have the burden, and if you start a debate saying "Santa Clause does not exist" which is a negative claim, you still have the burden. Only agnostic claims have no burden, so Pro's assertion that only positive claims have the BOP is blatantly false. Here is a further explanation [3]. While it's true that positive claims generally require a larger burden, a negative claim mandates a burden, so a negative claim by the instigator especially puts a burden on them. As I said, both sides in any debate have a burden; however, the instigator is the one making a claim meaning they must defend that claim whether positive or negative. || 4. Argument From Ignorance Fallacy || FREEDO ----> "I find this argument quite funny because my own entire argument is based around the committing of this fallacy... It all comes down to positive and negative statements. To say that someone who is making a negative statement has the BOP would be demanding proof for a negative, which commits the fallacy." In other words, suppose one instigated a debate called "God exists" but chooses the CON side. The instigator would be debating that God does not exist. Pro is under the misguided impression that expecting the instigator to argue against God commits the fallacy of demanding proof for a negative which is clearly false; once again this relies on his misguided presumption that only positive claims have a burden. My quotes and references have explained from a philosophical standpoint why every non-agnostic claim has a burden including the negative ones. Giving CON (the instigator) the burden in this debate does *NOT* commit the fallacy. Once again, this fallacy asserts that a claim is true so long as it has not been refuted. In other words, we must accept that God exists simply because God has not been disproven. Clearly that is not what I am saying or advocating for at all. However, Freedo is advocating this exact fallacy when he asserts PRO automatically has the burden simply because God has not been proven (in other words by keeping the burden on the one making the positive claim that God exists). This fallacy can go both ways and applies to both positive and negative claims. Again, expecting the one making a claim to defend their position does NOT commit this fallacy. The fallacy is only committed when you expect something to be accepted as truth simply because it hasn't been disputed. In this example/analogy, that is not the case. Freedo is clearly manipulating the terms of this fallacy and/or not understanding how to apply it properly. || 5. Re: Argument || Here Freedo makes a bunch of assertions, such as "If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof," etc. which is wrong for all of the reasons I've highlighted thus far. This whole assumption operates under the basis that only positive claims require a BOP which is false. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise [4]. || Conclusion || Only agnostic claims require no burden; if it's not an agnostic claim (positive or negative) then a burden exists. Agnostic claims don't instigate debates; they only contend them. So, the instigator always has a burden. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies In The Way of Words. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...