- Who holds the burden of proof?
- When is it appropriate to source?
- At what point is an argument affirmed?
- At what point is an argument negated?
- How do you decide if someone filled their burden of proof.
Blackflag:
Whoever is making the positive claim.
Blackflag:
- Who holds the burden of proof?
There's a lot of disagreement on this. If you're making a positive claim, as RM says, that can often be a giveaway. If you're saying that policy should change, you hold the burden of proof for explaining why. If you're saying something is better than something else, then you hold that burden. There are a lot of possible issues in there, and I normally handle it on a case-by-case basis. My advice, though, is this: never assume who has it. Include an argument making it clear who has it and why. Don't let your judges make the choice.
- When is it appropriate to source?
Anytime that you're making a substantial claim that can be challenged. If it's a claim you can support with pure logic, then there's no need to source it. Just provide the logic. If, however, the claim is about how things are/are going to be, you need some support. Often, warrants need evidence for support, because they're the pillars of your case. You don't want any question that you're right.
- At what point is an argument affirmed?
- At what point is an argument negated?
This is really a case-by-case issue. It all depends on the resolution. I can go over some with you, if you want.
- How do you decide if someone filled their burden of proof.
Again, really on a case-by-case basis.
I can go over some with you, if you want.
That would be great actually.
