The Burden of Proof

[saveliberty]

Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.

 

[midcan5]

Serious reply when I have time - but every time I post links and books I'm chastised by the right. Go figure.

 

[Al_Fundie]

Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.

Serious reply when I have time - but every time I post links and books I'm chastised by the right. Go figure.

Funny that you two want to pretend that the making stuff up style of "debating" is confined to one side or the other.

 

[pinqy]

Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

Mostly true. However I would say properly that it should be "If one were to make a certain POSITIVE claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity." Negative claims don't always need support.

Example: A: "I don't really think that X causes Y."
B: "But X does cause Y!"

Even though the initial claim was made by A, it is a negative claim..a lack of belief or confidence. A is not making a factual claim that X does not cause Y but a negative claim that the evidence/arguments have not convinced him, and does not have the burden of proof that X does not cause Y (though he does have an ethical obligation to explain why he rejects the causality argument).

B, by asserting that X does cause Y, is making the positive claim and has the burden of proof even though he's not the initial claimant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

Mostly true. However I would say properly that it should be "If one were to make a certain POSITIVE claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity." Negative claims don't always need support.

Example: A: "I don't really think that X causes Y."
B: "But X does cause Y!"

Even though the initial claim was made by A, it is a negative claim..a lack of belief or confidence. A is not making a factual claim that X does not cause Y but a negative claim that the evidence/arguments have not convinced him, and does not have the burden of proof that X does not cause Y (though he does have an ethical obligation to explain why he rejects the causality argument).

B, by asserting that X does cause Y, is making the positive claim and has the burden of proof even though he's not the initial claimant.

While it is possible to prove a negative, when making such claims, the burden -is- generally on those who disagree with the claim.

 

[saveliberty]

Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.

Serious reply when I have time - but every time I post links and books I'm chastised by the right. Go figure.

Funny that you two want to pretend that the making stuff up style of "debating" is confined to one side or the other.

Read for comprehension AF. Did I say sourcing wasn't required? Nope. Did I suggest an inpartial source was a good idea? Yes. I suggested denying a credible source and responding with a biased one was a problem.

 

[Al_Fundie]

Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.

Serious reply when I have time - but every time I post links and books I'm chastised by the right. Go figure.

Funny that you two want to pretend that the making stuff up style of "debating" is confined to one side or the other.

Read for comprehension AF. Did I say sourcing wasn't required? Nope. Did I suggest an inpartial source was a good idea? Yes. I suggested denying a credible source and responding with a biased one was a problem.

I was only laughing at the contention that one side did it more often than the other.

The sad truth is 90% of people who "debate" on message boards, aren't debating, they are simply screaming their opinion without wanting to actually hear anything which refutes it. I don't mean just this board, I mean any board, be the topic sports, religion, politics, or whatever else.

In other words, the truly idiotic once again scream the loudest and drown out the people who actually want to have civilized discussion, and those sorts exist on all points of the political spectrum.

 

[saveliberty]

I was only laughing at the contention that one side did it more often than the other.

The sad truth is 90% of people who "debate" on message boards, aren't debating, they are simply screaming their opinion without wanting to actually hear anything which refutes it. I don't mean just this board, I mean any board, be the topic sports, religion, politics, or whatever else.

In other words, the truly idiotic once again scream the loudest and drown out the people who actually want to have civilized discussion, and those sorts exist on all points of the political spectrum.

On this board, it is one party more than the other. True, both sides are contributors though. One thing that happens with me. (I'm admitting this) My sources get ignored or dismissed because the other party just doesn't want to change their opinion. After a while, my interest in posting a source goes away. If a source doesn't matter, why post one?

 

[Al_Fundie]

I was only laughing at the contention that one side did it more often than the other.

The sad truth is 90% of people who "debate" on message boards, aren't debating, they are simply screaming their opinion without wanting to actually hear anything which refutes it. I don't mean just this board, I mean any board, be the topic sports, religion, politics, or whatever else.

In other words, the truly idiotic once again scream the loudest and drown out the people who actually want to have civilized discussion, and those sorts exist on all points of the political spectrum.

On this board, it is one party more than the other. True, both sides are contributors though. One thing that happens with me. (I'm admitting this) My sources get ignored or dismissed because the other party just doesn't want to change their opinion. After a while, my interest in posting a source goes away. If a source doesn't matter, why post one?

I tend to not post sources much, unless they are quotes or something like that. What gets me is when you post something that in real life 99% of people would admit is true and some dolt (or multiple dolts) comes screaming into a thread "link?" Here's an idea dolt, how about being an adult and conceding known facts sans a link that you will just deny is true anyway.

Or , and this just happened to me on this board, Someone makes a wild claim and you post a valid comparison that shoots their claim in the head, and instead of debating to you why the situation they describe is different in their opinion they instead scream that you are bringing up scenarios that are irrelevant to the thread.

Once again, that is usually things that in a real life discussion an adult would say "that's a good point, but this is different because........" but no no on the internet that is apparently not allowed.


Oh, and I seriously doubt that one side or the other is more guilty of anything on this , or any other, board. We just tend to notice the flaws in those we disagree with more than we do in those we agree with, it's human nature X1000 on the internet; another message board pet peeve of mine.

 

[saveliberty]

I hate it when the ventriloquist's lips move too much.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I was only laughing at the contention that one side did it more often than the other.

The sad truth is 90% of people who "debate" on message boards, aren't debating, they are simply screaming their opinion without wanting to actually hear anything which refutes it. I don't mean just this board, I mean any board, be the topic sports, religion, politics, or whatever else.

In other words, the truly idiotic once again scream the loudest and drown out the people who actually want to have civilized discussion, and those sorts exist on all points of the political spectrum.

On this board, it is one party more than the other. True, both sides are contributors though. One thing that happens with me. (I'm admitting this) My sources get ignored or dismissed because the other party just doesn't want to change their opinion. After a while, my interest in posting a source goes away. If a source doesn't matter, why post one?

I tend to not post sources much, unless they are quotes or something like that. What gets me is when you post something that in real life 99% of people would admit is true and some dolt (or multiple dolts) comes screaming into a thread "link?" Here's an idea dolt, how about being an adult and conceding known facts sans a link that you will just deny is true anyway.

Or , and this just happened to me on this board, Someone makes a wild claim and you post a valid comparison that shoots their claim in the head, and instead of debating to you why the situation they describe is different in their opinion they instead scream that you are bringing up scenarios that are irrelevant to the thread.

Once again, that is usually things that in a real life discussion an adult would say "that's a good point, but this is different because........" but no no on the internet that is apparently not allowed.

Edited

That topic is till open, BTW, waiting for you post a sound counterargument that will 'close the thread down'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Even in formal debate, the participant can use a degree of logic and reason based on common knowledge and does not have to provide a citation for everything he or she says.

On a message board which will be much less structured, the ability to have a conversation should require much less formal citation in order to have that conversation. Otherwise you have endless links and/or cut and paste from opinions that may or may not be better than anybody else's. This becomes extremely time consuming, tedious, and in many cases quite boring for all but a very few.

Let common sense and not rigid rules prevail. If I comment that based on a recent reported increases in food stamp usage, we can conclude that people are either having harder times making ends meet or there is more abuse of the system. . . .

You can accept that you agree that there is more food stamp usage and focus on my rationale for why that is. . . .or. . . .

You can challenge my opinion that there is more food stamp usage.

THEN, I can find a credible source or sources to support my statement. And if you just aren't buying it, you can find a credible source to dispute it.

But if we both know and agree that food stamp usage is up, then we can focus on the whys and consequences of that and skip a lot of unnecessary fact checking.

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually, it seems to have everything to do with the OP. He provided an example of what you were opposing. And I doubt there is anyone ignorant as to what Harry Reid said last week.

So in a way, you are right, it's a perfect example.

I'm not aware of what Harry Reid said. So for the reader, I would think you would need to re-state his comment, then state why it is relevent to the argument and how it leads to your conclusion.

 

[Billo_Really]

Edited

Look at it as a challenge (and good exersize) to maintain good debating etiquette when faced with such adversity.

 

[Al_Fundie]

Even in formal debate, the participant can use a degree of logic and reason based on common knowledge and does not have to provide a citation for everything he or she says.

On a message board which will be much less structured, the ability to have a conversation should require much less formal citation in order to have that conversation. Otherwise you have endless links and/or cut and paste from opinions that may or may not be better than anybody else's. This becomes extremely time consuming, tedious, and in many cases quite boring for all but a very few.

Let common sense and not rigid rules prevail. If I comment that based on a recent reported increases in food stamp usage, we can conclude that people are either having harder times making ends meet or there is more abuse of the system. . . .

You can accept that you agree that there is more food stamp usage and focus on my rationale for why that is. . . .or. . . .

You can challenge my opinion that there is more food stamp usage.

THEN, I can find a credible source or sources to support my statement. And if you just aren't buying it, you can find a credible source to dispute it.

But if we both know and agree that food stamp usage is up, then we can focus on the whys and consequences of that and skip a lot of unnecessary fact checking.

Agreed, I hate seeing a mile long thread with a thousand quotes in it someone has made just to state an opinion. It ruins the flow of a thread, of course like I said, there are people who will demand a link for anything. If a conservative says the sky is blue a liberal will demand a link and visa versa.

 

[Billo_Really]

Even in formal debate, the participant can use a degree of logic and reason based on common knowledge and does not have to provide a citation for everything he or she says.

On a message board which will be much less structured, the ability to have a conversation should require much less formal citation in order to have that conversation. Otherwise you have endless links and/or cut and paste from opinions that may or may not be better than anybody else's. This becomes extremely time consuming, tedious, and in many cases quite boring for all but a very few.

Let common sense and not rigid rules prevail. If I comment that based on a recent reported increases in food stamp usage, we can conclude that people are either having harder times making ends meet or there is more abuse of the system. . . .

You can accept that you agree that there is more food stamp usage and focus on my rationale for why that is. . . .or. . . .

You can challenge my opinion that there is more food stamp usage.

THEN, I can find a credible source or sources to support my statement. And if you just aren't buying it, you can find a credible source to dispute it.

But if we both know and agree that food stamp usage is up, then we can focus on the whys and consequences of that and skip a lot of unnecessary fact checking.

We're in agreement there.

 

[Wiseacre]

You guys are getting close to the line. Was I you, I'd find somewhere and something else to post on. Friendly advice is all I'm saying here.

 

[saveliberty]

Edited

As I clearly pointed out this morning, you are submitting your employee's money for them. You are helping your employee. Its not government money until it reaches the government.

 

[redwood]

The killing of Ben Laden had little to do with Obama. The intel that got his location and afforded the sortie by the seal team was accomplished by the interrigation of Shek Mohammed and the capture and questioning of an al queda courier named Hassan Guhl in Iraq in 2003. (He wasn't reported captured until early 2004 when he was controlled in one of the CIA prisons now closed in Europe) The information he was carrying in the cds and computer that he poccessed led us to the capture or killing of a number of high ranking operatives to include Ben Laden.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Valid point" is a totally different area than "burden of proof."

"Burden of proof" relates to one's ability to support facts used to arrive at a conclusion. We can all agree that the facts are the facts: i.e. George Bush was President from 2001 through 2008. It would be absurd to challenge that fact every time it is mentioned. Just as absurd to challenge the fact that George W. Bush supported the retalitory attack on Afghanistan or the subsequent invasion of Iraq. Some things are a univerally accepted given and we can all agree without a lot of links and/or cuts and paste.

But, if we are having a conversation on the pros and cons of the Seniors Prescription Drug legislation or No Child Left Behind, signature legislation of the Bush Administration, to throw in a comment that Don Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein or Bush stole the 2000 election are irrelevent to the topic and are not at all 'valid points' whether or not they are true.