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

Greetings. I plan to dissect each and every part of my opponent's argument. "Indeed." A spurious gesture.... "Before a debate is accepted, the Instigator proposes a resolution and reasons/evidence/contentions to support his stance on it." Allow me to apply: Preceding my acceptance of this debate, the instigator (gahbage) has proposed a resolution: 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. "If he shows no evidence, then the contender has nothing to argue against and you have no reason to vote for the Instigator." 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. "Does anyone disagree?" It would appear so. Although my need to add an argument at this point is questionable, I will do so anyway, due to the shortness of this debate. I will assume a brief meaning of "burden of proof," as my opponent has failed to supply one initially. Burden of proof - reasons that have to be met before a proposition of fact, value, or policy can be evaluated. http://en.wikipedia.org... There is also a distinguishable difference between "A burden of proof" and "The burden of proof," as noted in the above reference as well. It is difficult to tell which one my opponent is referring to, but I will argue both. 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. A burden of proof comes in when one makes an argument. It is the evidence that needs to be given prior to taking the argument to be true. The burden of proof refers to the "reasons that have to be met for one to change from the logically valid default position. It falls on the person proposing change from the logically valid default position, or anyone who is making a positive claim when there is an unknown logically valid default position." Therefore, one can assumingly derive the following resolution surfacing as evident: The reasons that have to be met for one to change from the logically valid default position in a debate rely not on who is "PRO" (or "CON"), but on the "Instigator". Because this assumes the resolution, essentially, it therefore, according to my opponent, it falls on the person proposing change from the logically valid default position, or anyone who is making a positive claim when there is an unknown logically valid default position; and this person, with my opponent's accordingly, must be the instigator. I negate. 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. Allow me to proceed: If I can prove that in any circumstance the instigator is not exclusively in charge of any burden of proof, I, logically, win this debate. I will extrapolate some scenarios, and for any one of which that turns out to be absolutely true, I win. Indeed, such circumstances do exist. I will elaborate: For my first potential counterexample, let us assume that a resolution being dealt with is reminiscent of an opinion. For example, if the resolution read "In my opinion, Cross Country running is more fun than Track and Field." For the above example, let us assume that Pro was the instigator, and Con the contender. The role of the instigator would be to assert that the fact held truth. However, opinions are somewhat unique. The words "more fun" are used to state the instigator's opinion. Although, opinions do not have to be shared by others, as the nature of opinions entails a relative scale (e.g. ranging from boring to fun) that is likely to differ among individuals. 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. The contender must therefore show that the opinion of the instigator does not consider Cross Country running more fun than Track and Field. Until the contender can invalidate the instigator's claim, the instigator is winning. A burden of proof would thus lie upon the contender. Such opinionated resolutions are not to be considered negative proof fallacies. Burdens of proof should be substantiated with each new argument presented in a debate. For my second potential counterexample, I propose that both Pro and Con have an equal (or at least nearly equal) burden. Let us assume that in THIS debate, I, Con, rebut each of your points (or simply invalidate all analogies presented), but fail to make any of my own. Would not a vote for Pro be in order, as, hypothetically, I would not have given any reason to vote for me? I have thus proven that both sides in a debate share a burden of proof responsibility. For my third potential counterexample, I propose that the burden of proof lies dependently upon where the debaters choose to place it. 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. Such paradigms can be offered during debate. For my fourth potential counterexample, let us assume there is a debate with the following resolution: "Cross Country running is, on average, the most muscle-gaining sport." The instigator is Pro, and states initially that a sport is an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition. Pro would thus carry a burden of proof. 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. In order to carry that claim, Con must, as well, supply a burden of proof. If successful, Con could easily, on a logical basis, win the debate, as they would be proving the instigator incorrect. However, Pro would still, though, have a burden to prove the rebuttal of Con inadequate. I remind my opponent and voters that if any one of my scenarios is valid, I, CON, win. I, the contender, have supplied, on at least one occasion in this debate, the burden on proof, thus effectively contradicting your initial claim. I would like to thank my opponent, gahbage, for the debate topic. I await the remaining round.