The "burden of proof" in a debate relies not on who is "PRO" (or "CON"), but on the "Instigator".

"The instigator has NOT, however, provided any reasoning, evidence, or contentions to support their stance on it in this PARTICULAR debate." My backup was since the entire debate rests on the instigator supporting his opinion, he has a burden of proof. "One could therefore reason that I have nothing to argue against and any audience has no reason to vote for the instigator. Thus far, seeing no vote for the instigator, a vote for CON is currently in order." This very argument proves the debate to be in my favor. Since he doesn't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on ME, the INSTIGATOR, to support my stance. He basically just accepted this, making this an automatic PRO vote. "As stated in my opponent's initial resolution, it begins with "The ‘burden of proof.'" However, as evident in my opponent's opening argument, it seemingly refers to the meaning of "a burden of proof." Like I said, it is difficult to tell, but I plan on arguing in both senses of the term." Where have I referred to "a burden of proof"? I'm looking at my opening argument right now, and I see no such phrase, nor do I even mention the words "burden" or "proof", for that matter. The only time I have explicitly stated "burden of proof" is in the resolution, where it is preceded by "The". So I will not address my opponent's argument about "A burden of proof". "First of all, the instigator is NOT the only participant in a debate that makes or can make a positive claim where there is an unknown logically valid default position or proposing change from the default." This may be true, by the instigator is the only one who NEEDS to. Consider a court case. The prosecution (instigator) brings the defense (contender) to trial (debate). Now consider "innocent until proven guilty" ("burden of proof"). The prosecution must provide evidence proving the defense guilty. Likewise, the instigator must provide reasons proving [his stance on] the resolution. If the prosecution, however, cannot find sufficient evidence, the defense has not been proven guilty, and has no need to negate. Similarly, if the instigator cannot find sufficient reasons to support [his stance on] the resolution, the resolution has not been proven in his favor, and the contender has no need to negate. So as you can see, much like how the prosecution has the burden of proving the defense guilty, the instigator has the burden of proving the resolution in his favor. Now I will prove all of these scenarios invalid. First example: "Essentially, opinions reside in one's own mind. The instigator's opinion in such a hypothetical must be considered true, as anything is possible is one's own state of mind (and the instigator knows their own mind better than other would). The instigator has asserted the fact to hold truth." This is not true, as an "opinion" is not held as "fact". Therefore you cannot take the opinion of anyone as support, and the instigator has not proved the resolution. Even if the resolution requires an opinion, the contender can read it as addressing him, and give his opinion. This nullifies the instigator's opinion. I cite this debate as an example: http://www.debate.org... Note how the contender interprets the resolution, which nullifies the instigator's claim. Second example: "For my second potential counterexample, I propose that both Pro and Con have an equal (or at least nearly equal) burden." The resolution implies that, since the burden of proof relies on the instigator, the positions of PRO and CON do not matter. In all cases, the instigator has the burden of proof, regardless if he is PRO or CON. Regardless, since you are affirming the resolution, you concede this point. "Would not a vote for Pro be in order, as, hypothetically, I would not have given any reason to vote for me?" No, because the contender's job is to refute the instigator's points to make the initial claim false. But if the instigator has no points to begin with, the contender does not have to do anything. See my court example. Third example: "If it is stated that Con (let us assume contender) must win a particular sub-argument to a debate, and it is agreed by Pro (assumed instigator), then the burden of proof would be held by the contender in such a debate." When would this be? Refer to the court example; if the prosecution cannot prove the defense guilty, then the defense is considered innocent. If the instigator cannot prove the resolution in his favor, then the contender is considered the winner. Fourth example: "Logically, the contender could, instead of arguing that Cross Country running is NOT, on average, the most muscle-gaining sport, argue that Baseball is the most muscle-gaining sport." But this would virtually be the same thing, because if baseball is THE [single] most muscle-gaining sport, then cross country cannot be. Furthermore, if the instigator did not prove than cross country is the most muscle-gaining sport (the resolution), then why should the contender have to prove it for baseball? "However, Pro would still, though, have a burden to prove the rebuttal of Con inadequate." Yes, the "INSTIGATOR" would still have "THE [initial] BURDEN OF PROOF". Which is what the resolution states. =============================================================================== Now that I have proved these examples invalid, and have supported my claim while refuting my opponent's points, the vote goes to PRO.