Onus Probandi (Burden of Proof) Does NOT EXIST

Let me assume that Burden of Proof exists for a second.1. Legal "burden of proof" does Not Equal philosophical or debate "burden of proof"1. My opponent is using the legal definition and examples to describe a philosophical onus probandi.The difference is in a court system the accused is either: 1. innocent till proves guilty2. guilty till proven innocent. These 2 rules establish the default position in a court of law. In law the default position is an assumption of being true till over turned by a challenging party. But in a philosophical debate if a claim is accepted as being true with no supporting premises, or false with no supporting reasoning, then one is committing a philosophical fallacy. [1] An argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.Philosophical and logical debates do not make an assumption at the beginning of an argument on who is correct. What spurred this debate is my opponent was under the impression that a negative claim means he does not need to offer any reasoning or burden of proof when challenged.Further more he expresses that a negative claim is to be assumed true, till someone else proves it's opposite. Shifting the burden of proof.2. Negative or positive claim is no measure of default.Negative and Positive claims are in reference to structure. A positive claim can be written as a negative claim. "God does not exist" is a negative claim, but can be written as "God is imaginary" is a positive claim. The real issue that my opponent does not want to see is that a general or universal negative claim can not be proven. "X does not exist" would require the knowledge of everything in existence. Such a claim is unprovable. It can still be argued however with a negative proof, or as an affirmation of it being impossible. A case for plausibility could be made based on a lack of evidence as in If X existed, then A. No A so no X.1. There is no fire is a negative claim.2. If there was a fire, there would be smoke3. There is no smoke, so no fire.Implies is that a sufficient detection of smoke were possible. My opponent assumes a negative claim is default which is false. He also assumes that a general or universal negative claim being unprovable assumes true. To assume anything true or false with out justification is a fallacy. If a claimer feels they have justification then that is what is presented as the premises that the conclusion follows.3. Default claimsAs stated earlier the expression for a default claim in the Legal sense is the presupposition of the law to find a suspect guilty or innocent to the charges before a trial. This is a very different case for a logical debate or philosophical debate.But my opponent also confuses default with a Null hypothesis. You have heard in experimentation that "Correlation does not imply causation". The null hypothesis is a tool stating that a relationship between 2 things is nonexistent till proven otherwise. It is a tool and only effective when the Null hypothesis is compared to an alternate theory.Fr instance in drug trials a placebo is given. It is known the placebo has no effect. The null hypothesis states that if the alternate hypothesis exhibits the same data as an hypothesis of no relationship then no relationship is apparent.Because the Null hypothesis requires an alternate hypothesis to establish a relationship, some assert that it is on another person to proof the alternate theory correct. This is true for experimentation but not a philosophical debate. Any and every claim requires an argument for it's validity. Assumptions are not proof of validity or falsehood.4. FailClearly my opponent makes an appeal to his own authority with his 30+ years of civic service. But he confuses legal or experimental processes with the responsibility of a debater on philosophical matters.Following his own failed logic I made a negative claim and therefore do not hold any burden of proof that "burden of proof" exists.I merely have to find fault in my opponents arguments, which I have done. If I make a case for the nonexistence of "onus" process then I would be confirming such a process applies to me and exists.Furthermore Proof is only in Math and Alcohol so "Burden of Proof" as it applies to a debate is clearly nonexistent.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...