Burden of Proof
From DDO Fans Wiki
The Burden of Proof or BoP is an argument that posits that a person must show that their argument is correct before it can be accepted true. Because almost everyone applies burden of proof to each individual argument, the term "Burden of Proof" almost always refers to the resolutional burden of proof - that is, if one side fails to show that they are correct, their opponent wins by default.
[edit] Schools of Thought
There are several positions that people have taken on the BoP, although there is no consensus.[1][2][3][4][5]
Status Quo: The person making the claim which is not generally accepted as true in society has the burden of proof. For example, a person claiming the existence of UFO's would have the burden of proof, while a person claiming the existence of God would not. This is not a very popular position, as it can be shown to be a position based on the Ad Populum fallacy.
PRO: The PRO side of any debate has the burden of proof. This is mainly based on the formal debate style of Policy, where the affirmative position is advocating a plan that changes the status quo, and the negative wins by default if the affirmative's case does not hold up, or in other words, does not meet the burden of proof. The next stance is a counterargument to this one.
Instigator: The Instigator of any debate has the burden of proof. The Instigator BoP stance is essentially a DDO adaptation of the PRO position. Whereas in formal debate one cannot choose the resolution, on DDO the instigator can choose their side and word the resolution however they please, on top of having the opening argument. For many, these reasons are sufficient for the instigator to have the burden of proof. Instigator is the stance most people come to agree with.
Instigator's option: The burden of proof belongs to whoever the Instigator says has the burden of proof. Under this idea, if the Instigator says that the burden of proof is on the Contender, or that the burden of proof lies on both sides, then it is true. It is argued that this is comparable to how the Instigator also chooses the resolution and the debate type (such as LD), and how the Contender can choose not to accept the debate if he or she does not like the assertion of the burden of proof. This idea is not terribly popular, especially in the case where the Instigator does not make any assertions as to who has the BoP.
Provide a case regardless: The debate over burden of proof will never be resolved, so to play it safe and maximize potential points, it is best to always provide a case regardless of one's school of thought. Proponents of this idea further argue that providing a countercase can only serve to strengthen one's case.
Both: Both debaters acquire some burden of proof based on the controversiality of each of the debaters' claims. Proponents of this idea argue that most resolutions can be shifted ("There is a God" and "There is no God"), so the distinction between PRO and CON and instigator and contender is essentially meaningless. For example, if PRO, under the resolution "Abortion is immoral," provides a quote from a renowned philosopher, PRO is winning the debate so far. If CON then shows the quote was taken out of context, the debate becomes tied. If CON then provides some statistics showing that abortion is not immoral, CON is winning the debate so far.
No BoP: There is no resolutional burden of proof. The most common argument for this position is, more or less, "If A argues against B about C, simply because A cannot show that C is "X", it does not mean that C is "Not X", which B needs to show in order to win." No BoP used to be a fringe belief in v2/DDC as the voting system only allowed to vote one way or another, but with the release of v3/DDO and the ability to not vote for either side, more people have come to take this as their position.
[edit] Notes
Sometimes, a debater will effectively shift the BoP onto his or her opponent by using a default such as "all else being equal, choices should be allowed" [6] or "all things are legal by default until they are made illegal" [7]. This argument would in itself fulfill any BoP, although the debater would still need a counter-argument once their opponent responds.
[edit] References
- ↑ http://www.Debate.org/debate/8301/
- ↑ http://www.debate.org/forums/education/topic/2004/
- ↑ http://www.Debate.org/debate/2620/
- ↑ http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/1536/
- ↑ http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/1430/
- ↑ http://www.Debate.org/debate/8807/
- ↑ http://www.Debate.org/debate/8951/
