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

According to my opponent's own claim, gahbage MUST show evidence to support the claim. Having no evidence, I, though not having evidence to rebut, still can make an argument. I can still explain my stance on the issue, effectively even proving the resolution to be incorrect. And that is the POINT; I have that POTENTIAL to prove my stance. What has been shown in my opponent's Round 1 is mere symbolism in attempt to prove the point regarding the burden of proof. Instead of giving valid points in the instigator's Round 1, only a symbolic notion was given, thus effectively contradicting my opponent's own stance in this debate. In an argument, by definition (SEE APPENDIX A), one is attempting to supply evidence to prove something to be true. If I prove my own stance, negating the resolution to be true, then, in this debate, my opponent's stance would be false. By arguing in my Round 1, I have shown this debate to be in my favor, contrary to my opponent's claim. I have argued in attempt to prove. In fact, whether or not in my Round 1 I indeed did prove something or not, it is irrelevant. The point is, the contender has the POTENTIAL to. Why "a burden of proof" may in fact be the point of contention: Stated in my opponent's Round 1, "Before a debate is accepted, the Instigator proposes a resolution and reasons/evidence/contentions to support his stance on it. " I am inferring that my opponent's Round 1 is indeed referring to the posted resolution. Therefore, accordingly, the instigator must exemplify the evidence that needs to be given prior to taking the argument to be true. This, by definition, is "a burden of proof" (defined in my Round 1). Regardless of any mention of "The ‘burden of proof'" in the resolution, there is no mention, implicit or explicit, in my opponent's Round 1. Again, I realize that "a burden of proof" in not explicitly mentioned in my opponent's Round 1, but the R1 was the only defining factor to guide the debate. Therefore, I have no choice but not comply with the reasons as to which I have supplied, regarding having to use the term "A burden of proof" in this debate, instead of "The burden of proof. " If my opponent were to have given a definition, and explained in the instigator's Round 1, what was meant by the term "The ‘burden of proof,'" evident in the resolution, I would have had to resort to that meaning. But alas, it was not there. All claims in my opponent's Round 2 argument regarding "The burden of proof" are invalidated. Regardless of who needs a burden of proof, it can still be used by the contender. With that, I have negated the resolution. First counterexample validation: Indeed, an opinion is not held as a fact. However, it may be a fact that someone has an opinion. If a debate resolves around the fact that someone has an opinion, the instigator is not attempting to show that their opinion is fact, but rather that it is a fact that they do indeed have an opinion. The only way to show evidence of the fact that someone may have an opinion is to, by their own mind, supply it. Opinions, by nature, only need one person to verify that it indeed exists. This person is the individual that has the opinion. The instigator, claiming they would have an opinion for something, would most likely win the resolution in a debate (unless, somehow, they were proven wrong by the contender), and therefore, a burden of proof can fall upon the contender. Assume that the instigator addresses a resolution in such a way as follows: "In the instigator's opinion (oboeman), running is fun. " In that way, the resolution cannot be interpreted to be including the contender. In such a debate, it is possible for a burden of proof to fall upon the contender. Second counterexample validation: I only used the terms Pro and Con to represent both members of the debate. As proved earlier in this response, both my opponent and I MUST go by what was claimed in my opponent's Round 1, which refers (see above) to "A burden of proof. " And indeed, a burden of proof, in some situations I have addressed, does fall upon the contender. Third counterexample validation: Take the abortion debate. The instigator claims it to be ethical, and the contender unethical. After vigorous debate, it is found that the only point of contention remains in the subject of potential life. It is agreed by both members that whoever wins this contention would win the overall debate. The instigator claims potential life is irrelevant, as it is different from society currently values as life. The contender claims that potential life is deserving of developed life. A burden of proof could fall upon the contender to prove their point, in order to win the debate. If it is agreed by both members of the debate, who is anyone else in the debating community to tell them differently? That would be a violation of liberty, by telling them how the debate must be run. Though it may be somewhat unconventional or not, that is irrelevant. If two debaters come to an agreement that the contender must prove their point (even if the instigator uses manipulation tactics to convince them that it is so), then, effectively, a burden of proof could fall upon the contender. Civil debate is different from law/courtroom proceedings. The law is about justice. Civil debate, however, is about determining truth with mutual agreement. In a debate, one is attempting to convince the other to see the issue from their view. Fourth counterexample validation: Regardless of which indeed is the most muscle-gaining sport, the contender could argue, to disprove the resolution, that Baseball is, rather than Cross Country. The instigator could argue initially that Cross Country is, but without taking some factors into account. This could be seen as proof by the instigator, but not the contender. Therefore, the contender could jump in and argue why baseball is, and implement all the involved factors. A burden of proof would fall upon the contender if the contender chose to argue from such a standpoint. For the sake of argument, let us even assume, to assure any skeptical voters, that I did have to go upon the definition I supplied of "The burden of proof. " (Again, I need not. ) The burden of proof, by definition (SEE APPENDIX A), would rely upon the debater suggesting change from the logically valid default position. Let us assume the instigator in such a debate was suggesting that it is ethical to scratch one's own skin. Of course, scratching one's own skin would be a normal thing to do. However, the contender comes in, saying it is unethical (only position the contender may take). According to the definition I have given, the burden of proof goes to the contender. Application of contender having burden of proof…. . http://www.debate.org... In the debate referenced, the instigator was Kleptin, and the contender me_a. It is clearly marked by the vote tally. However, the contender had the main burden of proof. If I may remind my opponent, no definition of "instigator" was given, and therefore, I may assume the instigator to be Kleptin in this debate (it is clearly marked). The main burden of proof, seemingly, does not fall on this debater. This supports my claim against the resolution. APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS Argument - an assertion offered as evidence that something is true. A burden of proof - evidence that needs to be given prior to taking argument to be true. The burden of proof - falls on a person proposing change from logically valid default position, or anyone who is making a positive claim when there is an unknown logically valid default position. If just one of my prepossessing counterexamples is valid, I win. All seem to be validated with rebuttals. I have supplied numerous burdens of proof as to why I am correct. Logic dictates a CON vote.