10 months ago
Vote to comment and see the results
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 10 months ago

    I agree, not by default. Certain resolutions do call for it though.

    • 10 months ago

      @sigfried In this community debate (https://www.qallout.com/debate/5427-there-is-no-god) @sharkb8 and @kyrothehero say that claimant has BoP by appealing to formal logic. What would you say about that?

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy I said anyone who makes a claim has to prove it. Con can make a claim just as much as Pro can.

    • 10 months ago

      @sharkb8 Isn't PRO defined as the one who makes claim? claimant and PRO are synonymous isn't it? Atleast in QO

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy well just about any pro resolution will be a claim of some sort, but just about every con response will also be a claim.

      Pro: Immigrants are good
      Con: No they aren’t

      Both sides have made a claim. Both sides need to prove their side. Then both sides get to debate who has better proven their claim.

      Pro: Immigrants are good because
      Warrant 1.
      Warrant 2.
      Study 1.
      Study 2.

      Con: No they aren’t because they hurt people.

      Pro: where is your proof for that claim? Where is your response to the warrants and evidence I presented? You made a claim that immigrants are bad, and you further contended that immigrants hurt people. Where is your backing for these points?

      Pro would be correct.

    • 10 months ago

      @sharkb8 In all the debates Pro says "X is true", Con says "X is false". Both party always make a claim. Do you agree? If yes then how did you say claimant(one who said "There is no god") has all BoP in "There is no god" debate

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy yes, Pro has to prove his claim. Con also has to prove their claim, unless they are not making a claim.

      Saying “there is a God” is a claim.
      Saying “there is no God” is a claim.
      Saying “I do not know if there is a God” is not a claim.
      Saying “You have not proven there is a God” is not a claim.
      Saying “You have not proven the non-existence of a deity” is not a claim.

      Note, the last two are claims about what the person who spoke before them said, but they aren’t independent claims on theit own.

      The initial position is always neutrality. We neither confirm nor deny. When one side successfully proves one side, we accept that side. But they have to prove that side first.

    • 10 months ago


      Repeating my last comment, "Both parties always make a claim" (before even starting the debate). Do you agree ?

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy not necessarily. Usually Con makes a claim, but sometimes they don’t need to. If Pro makes a claim and Con spends their entire time saying Pro’s claim was unproven, Con can win because Pro’s resolution has not been proven.

  • 3 months ago

    If someone says "god exist" and I say "I don't believe you" How do I have any burden of proof? Saying not guilty is not equivalent to saying innocent. You're simply not convinced that they are guilty. Instead of shifting the burden of prove ... prove the claim.