It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate

I'm glad we've put most of our definitional quibbles behind us. Con is absolutely correct to say that it is possible for both teams on the government or opposition to be top-ranked in a BP debate, which is of course still covered by the motion.Con's caseCon has not challenged that it is possible, in EYP style, to get an indecisive outcome, or that there is no requirement for judging objectively. So yeah, I guess that's conceeded. That is enough to stop it being a formal, competitive debate. All debates must have a conclusive result where one side wins.What he does challenge is that EYP is judged on burdens of proof. He does this by explaining the rules of EYP. Don't worry, I'm vaguely familiar with them already. But ultimately it's not the case that one team wins because they met their burden of proof. The whole event is judged simply on who was the most pursuasive not at meeting a specific burden of proof, but at argumentation more generally. That's judging on balance, not burdens, and my opponent hasn't engaged with my analysis. I suspect this is because he didn't read the part about how the words burden of proof are being abused to mean "justification", which is of course entirely fallacious. I cannot, before an EYP debate, say "If I prove this, then I will win". And thus EYP has no burdens of proof for debates.Just to clarify once again: I agree that EYP is debating, in a loose sense of the term. I disagree that EYP is formal, competitive debating.My caseMy opponent conceeds my entire case except for one specific motion. I'm very glad that we agree at least 99.9999999999% of the time, it should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate. Now let me focus on the remaining 0.0000000001%."If PRO did not argue that Japan would be better with nuclear energy, but criticised wind energy, while CON says nothing, then we get a problem."No we wouldn't. Pro would fail their BOP because they had to defend the entire resolution, not just the parts of the resolution they'd like to argue."we cannot say CON wins, as we'd be disregarding the entire fact that he said nothing."What makes you think saying nothing is unconvincing? Sometimes silence can be just as meaningful as speech. I think it was Napoleon who once said "never interrupt your adversary when he is making a mistake" (or something like that). That's true of debating. If con had said how great wind energy is, then pro would win. It is more convincing to say nothing."The fairest conclusion would to say that the burden of proof is shared between the two.""the burden of proof has to be assumed to be shared in order to maximise fairness and value debates properly."Fair or not fair, it can still lead to impossible-to-judge situations, which mean the debate is no longer a competitive one. Not all competitions are fair, and debating is one of them. For example, if I know a lot about a motion, I am unfairly advantaged, but that doesn't mean I should have points taken off me or anything like that. To be competitive, there must be an outcome in all cases. Sometimes a tie would probably be fair in a debate, but a tie is never competitive.I look forward to our next round.