1.3 Burden of proof and presumption

In debates, the burden of proof and presumption play crucial roles in determining who must provide evidence for their claims. The burden of proof typically falls on the side advocating for change, while presumption favors the status quo unless proven otherwise.

Understanding these concepts gives debaters a strategic edge. They can use techniques to shift the burden, challenge presumptions, and exploit fallacies in their opponents' arguments. Mastering these principles is essential for success across various debate formats.

Burden of proof

• Burden of proof is a critical concept in argumentation and debate that determines which side has the responsibility to prove their case
• Understanding how to assign, meet, and shift the burden of proof can give debaters a strategic advantage in rounds
• Burden of proof is often connected to presumption, which is the default position that is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise

Defining burden of proof

Top images from around the web for Defining burden of proof

• 

  Free of Charge Creative Commons prima facie Image - Legal 17 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue | SpringerLink View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Burden Of Proof - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 1 image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Free of Charge Creative Commons prima facie Image - Legal 17 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue | SpringerLink View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Defining burden of proof

• 

  Free of Charge Creative Commons prima facie Image - Legal 17 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue | SpringerLink View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Burden Of Proof - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 1 image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Free of Charge Creative Commons prima facie Image - Legal 17 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue | SpringerLink View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence for their position
• In a debate, the side making a claim or advocating for a change bears the burden of proof
• Burden of proof requires the affirmative side to present a prima facie case, meaning sufficient evidence to establish a claim or warrant further discussion

Burden of proof in argumentation

• Burden of proof applies to any argument where there is a disagreement between two parties
• The party making a positive claim (asserting that something is true) bears the burden of proof
• Failing to meet the burden of proof means the claim can be dismissed without needing to be disproven

Assigning burden of proof

• In most debates, the affirmative team has the initial burden of proof to advocate for a change from the status quo
• Burden of proof can also be assigned based on the specific type of claim being made (value, fact, policy)
• Some arguments, such as counterplans or kritiks, can shift the burden of proof to the negative team

Meeting the burden of proof

• Fulfilling the burden of proof requires presenting sufficient evidence and reasoning to support a claim
• Evidence can include facts, statistics, expert testimony, or logical arguments
• The strength of evidence needed to meet the burden of proof may vary based on the type of claim and the stakes of the debate (criminal trials vs. civil disputes)

Legal presumption

• Legal presumptions are default assumptions made by the court in the absence of evidence to the contrary
• Presumptions in the legal context are often based on common sense, fairness, or public policy considerations
• Understanding how legal presumptions function can inform a debater's strategic decisions when making arguments related to presumption

Presumption of innocence

• The fundamental legal principle that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
• Places the burden of proof on the prosecution to provide compelling evidence of guilt
• Designed to protect individuals from wrongful convictions and uphold due process rights

Other legal presumptions

• Presumption of validity for patents and copyrights
• Presumption of death after a person has been missing for a certain period (varies by jurisdiction)
• Presumption of legitimacy for children born during a marriage
• Presumption of sanity in criminal cases, requiring the defense to prove insanity

Presumption in debate

• Presumption in debate refers to the default position that is assumed to be true unless the affirmative team provides sufficient evidence for change
• Debaters should be aware of how presumption operates in different debate formats and types of arguments
• Effectively using or overcoming presumption can be a key factor in winning debates

Presumption and the status quo

• In policy debate, there is a presumption in favor of the status quo, or the current state of affairs
• The affirmative team must provide compelling reasons to change from the status quo through their plan or advocacy
• If the affirmative fails to meet their burden of proof, the negative team can win by defending the status quo

Presumption and counterplans

• Counterplans, presented by the negative team, offer an alternative policy option to the affirmative plan
• Presenting a counterplan can shift the presumption from the status quo to the counterplan itself
• The negative must then defend the counterplan against the affirmative's attacks and prove its superiority to the affirmative plan

Presumption and kritiks

• Kritiks are philosophical or theoretical arguments that challenge the fundamental assumptions of the debate
• Running a kritik can shift the presumption by arguing that the affirmative's advocacy is flawed or unethical
• The negative must demonstrate that the kritik outweighs any potential benefits of the affirmative plan

Shifting the burden of proof

• In some cases, debaters may attempt to shift the burden of proof to gain a strategic advantage
• Shifting the burden of proof involves making arguments that force the opposing side to defend their position
• Successfully shifting the burden of proof can put pressure on the other team and give the shifting team more ground to attack their opponent's case

Techniques for shifting burden

• Asking pointed questions that expose weaknesses in the opposing side's argument
• Presenting counterexamples or alternative explanations that undermine the initial claim
• Using a kritik to challenge the fundamental assumptions underlying the opposing team's position
• Arguing that the opposing side has failed to meet their burden of proof, forcing them to provide additional evidence

Consequences of shifting burden

• If the team receiving the shifted burden of proof fails to adequately respond, they may lose key arguments or the debate as a whole
• Shifting the burden of proof can change the direction of the debate and the types of arguments that are prioritized
• Teams must be prepared to defend against attempts to shift the burden of proof and have strategies in place to regain control of the debate

Burden of proof fallacies

• Burden of proof fallacies occur when the burden of proof is misapplied or manipulated in an argument
• Recognizing and pointing out these fallacies can be an effective way to counter opposing arguments and maintain the proper allocation of the burden of proof
• Debaters should strive to avoid committing burden of proof fallacies in their own arguments

Argument from ignorance

• Asserting that a claim is true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa
• Shifts the burden of proof to the other side to disprove the claim, rather than requiring evidence to support it
• Example: "No one has proven that ghosts don't exist, so they must be real"

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy

• Occurs when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of an argument
• Often happens when a debater makes a claim and then demands that the other side disprove it, rather than providing evidence themselves
• Example: "Prove to me that climate change isn't happening" (when the initial claim was that climate change is occurring)

Reversing the burden of proof

• A specific type of shifting the burden of proof fallacy where the burden is placed on the side that is questioning or denying a claim
• Attempts to make the questioner prove that the original claim is false, rather than requiring the claimant to provide evidence
• Example: "If you don't believe in UFOs, then prove they don't exist"

Presumption vs assumption

• Presumption and assumption are related but distinct concepts in debate
• Understanding the difference between presumptions and assumptions is important for debaters to make strategic decisions and build effective arguments
• Presumptions are often grounded in evidence or reasoning, while assumptions may lack support

Defining presumption and assumption

• Presumption: An idea that is taken to be true based on reasonable evidence or common understanding, but can be overcome by contrary evidence
• Assumption: Something that is accepted as true without proof, often based on personal beliefs or biases

Presumptions in debate vs assumptions

• Presumptions in debate, such as the presumption of the status quo, are based on established norms and can be challenged with sufficient evidence
• Assumptions in debate are often unsupported claims that can weaken an argument if exposed and refuted by the opposing side
• Debaters should aim to base their arguments on solid presumptions while avoiding reliance on unfounded assumptions

Burden of proof in different debate formats

• The application of burden of proof principles may vary depending on the specific format and rules of a debate
• Debaters should be familiar with how burden of proof functions in the primary debate formats: policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and public forum
• Adapting to the unique burden of proof expectations in each format is essential for constructing effective cases and rebuttals

Burden of proof in policy debate

• In policy debate, the affirmative team has the burden of proof to present a plan that solves for a significant problem in the status quo
• The negative team can challenge the affirmative's burden by demonstrating that the plan does not solve the problem, has significant disadvantages, or that there is a better alternative (counterplan)
• Policy debate often involves complex discussions of policy-making and real-world implications, requiring teams to provide substantial evidence to meet their burdens

Burden of proof in Lincoln-Douglas debate

• Lincoln-Douglas debate focuses on value propositions and philosophical arguments, with the affirmative advocating for a specific value or principle
• The affirmative has the burden to prove that their value should be prioritized in the context of the resolution
• The negative can challenge the affirmative's framework, provide counterexamples, or argue for an alternative value premise
• Meeting the burden of proof in Lincoln-Douglas often involves constructing a clear framework and providing compelling philosophical justifications

Burden of proof in public forum debate

• Public forum debate involves debating resolutions based on current events and public policy issues
• The affirmative team has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the resolution is more likely to be true than false
• The negative team can counter the affirmative's case by pointing out flaws in their evidence, reasoning, or by presenting a compelling case against the resolution
• Public forum debates often prioritize persuasive speaking and accessible argumentation, requiring teams to effectively communicate their evidence to meet their burden of proof