The Burden of Proof should be Optional, not Necessary

On debate goals 1) You can find the truth without evidence. The truth is always out there, again though, evidence helps. 2) It is to convince the audience, which you can do without proof but it helps. Again showing its a luxury one should put the best of use to, but not a necessity. "Creating a fantastic argument based on a flawed premise is only second best. Without any evidence, you essentially have no argument at all." You can have an argument without showing evidence. So long as you know it, that is proof enough that there is some modicum of substantiation. "No. Sleazy tactics and logical fallacies ruin the debate." Ruin how? They take the fun out of it? Isn't your stance that its not about fun, only convincing? If you simply can do it, doesn't that mean fallacies are a good thing? "Precisely. And defending it necessarily involves a proof" No, defending it only requires manipulation. Facts help that, but words are still just as effective. As long as you can convey your point and make others believe it your making an argument, with or without direct proof. "Similarly, if two soccer (football) teams are playing a match, one team most definitely has the right to stand there and do absolutely nothing. But if so much as one goal is scored on them, the other team has the luxury of being able to stand there, mock them, and still win when the buzzer sounds" Similarly, a man can stand there with as many charts, graphs, and articles as he wants, but someone with better powers of self reasoning will always win. This is why religion is so much more prominent than science. You can show as much proof as you want, but the on who is more appealing will win. "I find this to be a complete untruth. I ask that you justify your argument. Since both legal proceedings and debates involve discovering the truth through presenting arguments and evidence, I find this statement to be false" I already did justify it. Perhaps you did not read my last round clearly enough. I had prior knowledge of what Burden of Proof is and presented it. You can wikipedia Burden of Proof, and it will say the exact same thing. I know, I looked, and you can do so on your own. "All of which involve the presentation of a logical proof." No, only logic, which you do with your mind, not with hard evidence. As you'll recount, the only 'evidence' we have both shown is strictly word oriented. Very vague and unspecific to real happenings, yet clear enough so the opponent and audience can understand. Your only proving my point. On your last point about me misunderstanding what burden of proof is. I believe it is your definition that may be incorrect. As I said, burden of proof is purely legal. What it is is the necessity to show hard evidence to prove something to be true. For instance, without a murder weapon, bodies, and plausible links you cannot convict a serial killer. Law enforcers have to show this as it will determine the further lifestyles of human beings. It is the burden of the police and lawyers to provide proof for their cases. It is rather the members of this site who may or may not have misconstrued it into using it as a cheap tactic in attempting to show the possible ineptness of their opponent. What you are describing is exactly what I am proposing, in that if one can logically conclude their premises there is no need to provide hard evidence. I've been saying this from the beginning of this debate. If there is anyone who is at fault for arguing on a wrong point it is you. If this is the case then it is I who have won. It seems that it is you who in this last round must prove, as I said in the beginning "con's position: That the burden of proof is not optional, but necessary". I have, for this whole debate, rebutted every one of your examples, showing that ones own prowess is enough to win a civilian debate. You are saying that hard evidence is needed, which is what burden of proof is, thus treating any regular debate like a legal proceeding. Trying to switch our positions will not win you this debate, only prove that you don't know what your talking about. I remind the voters of my stance and my opponents. I have argued on my case the entire time, while my opponent has been misguided by his own misunderstanding. While voting, remember it is not which side you agree on on a personal level, but which side presented and defended their case better. So that people might be clear on what Burden of Proof is, I will provide some right now with the wikipedia article link. Perhaps then this may finally be settled: http://en.wikipedia.org... Darth_Grievous_42 out.