Clarifying burden of proof

There is one thing I want to set straight. There is never a higher expectation on the BOP holder in a debate. While pro may hold the burden of proving his case, in a debate, con also holds the burden of proving him wrong.

The reason this gets confusing, is because debating isn't actually about proving, but convincing. We set out to convince one side that we are more likely right. On DDO, people have a tendency to judge by burden of proof. For example, if pro were to make a very good case, but con were to say one thing that put doubt in the judges mind, it wouldn't be justified to give con the win solely on that minuscule doubt.

In other words, the debaters goal isn't to prove himself more correct. The debaters goal is to convince a idealistically neutral judge that they are more likely to be right.

Blackflag: Burden of rejoinder is more recognized in some parts of the world than others. When done correctly, I think BOP-based judging can still be good judging. In your example, it would come down to the idea that a miniscule doubt would hardly even satisfy the "reasonable doubt" standard, and BOP is used for balance of probabilities anyway. Mostly BOP is useful as a tool for resolving very very close debates.

Just my personal view as usual, not really an official statement by any means lol.

admin: BOP is not how you should judge by any means. Burden of rejoinder is fair.
Do you disagree that debating is about convincing an idealistically neutral judge you are more likely to be right? Just curious.

Blackflag: In answer to the question - to a significant extent, yes. The only other part of debating not covered by that which I can think of is structure - that is, keeping to the rules of the debate and giving everybody a fair chance to have their say.

admin: So you do not think convincing people your side is more likely correct is a fundamental part of debating?

Blackflag: Often yes. Again, I can think of exceptions to that strategy, such as a straight neg, but even there I suppose you're "convincing" indirectly.