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

|| 1. Moralistic Fallacy || Unfortunately, my opponent did not understand my criticism of him using the moralistic fallacy here. While it's true that the moralistic fallacy does not ONLY apply to morality, you'll notice that I never claimed that it did. What it does is move from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be. For instance, suppose you don't look both ways before crossing a one-way street. Your reasoning is that the cars shouldn't be going the wrong way down a one-way street, and thus there is no incentive to look both ways. This would be committing the moralistic fallacy: assuming things are a certain way because that's the way they ought to be. As such, citing this fallacy actually helps *my* case - which I pointed out in the last round. Pro writes, "What 'should' be done is irrelevant... This debate is about how things ARE." So, if Pro says that I am committing this fallacy - assuming that things are one way because they ought to be one way - then my opponent just admitted that the instigator *ought* to have the BOP. By saying they ought to have the BOP, but that's not always the reality, then essentially what that translates to is that when the instigator does *not* have the BOP (such as when it's agreed before-hand that they wouldn't), it's really a violation of who SHOULD have the BOP, and that's the instigator. Pro concedes that the instigator then DOES have the burden of proof. While he mentions that the burden may be shifted by mutual agreement from the debaters, it still proves that the instigator has the burden until they prove that the contender accepts the shift of the burden. Either way the instigator in making the initial claim still has a burden. Claiming "my opponent has the BOP" is still an instigator making an initial claim :) || 2. Instigator Has Burden Because They're Making A Claim || Upon my statement that the instigator is always making a claim, Pro writes, "Oh really? Even the debate where I quoted my opponent and asked them to defend his own statement? Even in debates with titles that are demands asking the contender to prove something? I don't think so." Whether my opponent thinks so or not, my point stands. For instance, let's look at his first scenario: a debate where he quotes an opponent and asks them to defend the statement. By quoting the opponent and taking a stance on the quote (in which the instigator would presumably be Con), they are making the claim that they are against (or will be debating against) what the contender said in the quote. This is obvious. Second scenario: debates with titles that are demands asking the contender to prove something. I'm assuming, for instance, something like "My opponent must prove that pigs fly." The instigator would probably choose Pro. In that case, my reasoning from Section 1 applies -- that even if the burden is agreed mutually to be shifted (i.e. giving the contender the higher burden), the instigator was still making a claim with that resolution -- that they didn't agree with Con and would be arguing against Con's notion -- so until it's proven (agreed) that the contender accepts the burden, then the instigator still has the initial burden. Like I said, the burden can be shifted, but that does not take away from the fact that initially the instigator in making a claim assumes the BOP. Seems silly, but clearly my opponent is resorting to this kind of mutual shift -- I'm quite sure it's because I've proven via logic and a bunch of scholar's quotes that the one making an initial claim (instigator) accepts the burden in every philosophical debate (unless, as I said, it was an agnostic claim). However, I want to be clear on this in that while the burden CAN be shifted, the instigator *initially* has it. And moreover, you'll find Pro committing his own cited fallacy with these scenarios! If the moralistic fallacy states that you assume things are one way because they ought to be one way, then consider Pro's example where he suggested a resolution that specifically gives the contender the burden. For instance, "My opponent must prove that pigs fly." With that statement, you'd assume that the instigator's opponent has the BOP, right? But that's assuming that something is one way just because it ought to be one way... does it not? || 3. Positive and Negative Assertions || Freedo insists, "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does." Of course this completely ignores my argument that both positive AND negative claims have a burden! As I said, the only claims with no burden are agnostic claims. Freedo refuses to accept this reality. He says, "Here is my observation; That specific statement which I made is correct and was not refuted by my opponents reply that I find quite silly to say the least. But in the larger context both my opponent and I were wrong." How does this make any sense whatsoever? Quite clearly I negated his statement that only positive statements require a burden in proving that this was false -- negative claims require proof too. In fact, I cited numerous scholarly sources proving that I was right. My opponent merely said I never responded when quite obviously and blatantly I did, making this a lie and bad conduct in my opinion. Additionally, it's completely false that we're both wrong -- he is wrong, and I am right. Pro writes, "I never stated anything about the negative or agnostic stance. I stated that making a positive claim produces a burden of proof, which she actually confirms in her supposed refutation." THIS IS ANOTHER LIE. In Round 2, Freedo said - and I quote verbatim - "Making a statement does not give you the burden of proof. Making a positive assertion does." In other words, he specifically states that only making positive assertions require a BOP. Any non-positive assertion is either agnostic or negative, proving that Pro did indeed mistakenly assert something FALSE. Now he's trying to claim he never made that false statement, but quite clearly he did. For more proof that Freedo is clearly lying, here are 2 more examples from R2 where he literally clarifies his (false) assertion that only positive statements have a BOP -- "Whether the statement is positive or negative has everything to do with it... If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof." I rest my case. Another mistake from Pro -- He says, "My opponent says making a statement does produce a burden of proof... She then goes on to say that an agnostic statement does not produce a burden of proof. A clear contradiction." As I specified and clarified in the last round (in the CONCLUSION section - which Pro blatantly ignored) verbatim I wrote: agnostic claims don't instigate debates - they only contend them. So, the instigator always has a burden. You'll notice that my opponent never responded to this, and instead conveniently points out a "contradiction" that is not a contradiction at all, AND that of which I've already explained. || 4. Argument From Ignorance Fallacy || Pro concedes that I never committed this fallacy, which I explained in the last round. || 5. Re: Argument || Pro writes, "If the title is negative and you are PRO then you do not have the burden of proof." This directly contradicts what he said a few sentences earlier - "Negative statements also produce a burden of proof." This is one contradiction of many from his final "argument." And, while he uses bad conduct by bringing up a new argument in the last round, his "rule of conduct" argument actually fails. Why? It's already been entirely refuted by me in Section 2. Even if the contender accepts the burden (his supposed "twist") then it doesn't take away from the instigator's initial burden. I've explained this at length in this round. Thanks, Pro, for the debate.