Shifting the burden of proof

[Exiro]

My Dutch teacher taught me that the person who makes a claim is also the person who should start naming arguments. Now, I do see the logic behind this: otherwise, I could say ridiculous things like 'Sinister Serpent should be unlimited', followed by a simple 'prove me wrong'. However, cards are normally not banned, so it is very correct to not just ask for but also to demand reasoning from the party claiming it should be banned, even if it already was banned.

So, both systems have a flaw, but which of the flaws is worse?:
[list]
[*]Having to explain time and again why murder should not be legal
[*]Avoid needing a reason why murder should not be legal simply because that's what happens to be the case as of now
[/list]

How should it work, YCM?

[CrabHelmet]

"The arguments are already well-established; you may look them up on their own time."

[Exiro]

[quote name='Crab Helmet' timestamp='1303071488' post='5146363']
"The arguments are already well-established; you may look them up on their own time."
[/quote]
Why the quotation marks? That is exactly what I am not saying.

[CrabHelmet]

I'm saying that simply saying that provides an answer that is concise, correct, and does not incorrectly shift the burden of proof.

[Exiro]

[quote name='Crab Helmet' timestamp='1303076401' post='5146577']
I'm saying that simply saying that provides an answer that is concise, correct, and does not incorrectly shift the burden of proof.
[/quote]
Surely it wouldn't hurt of one did that even before making any claim, but not everyone with a certain opinion has the same arguments behind it. It depends a lot on the topic (on some things most people agree for the same reason), but there are many cases where one making a claim would just have to guess the other party's arguments and go against it, perhaps to hear that they did that for nothing.

[Exiro]

Is this a lame subject?

[DARKPLANT RISING]

[quote name='Exiro Divinus' timestamp='1303217059' post='5151240']
Is this a lame subject?
[/quote]
No! Of course not! It's just that the generally depressing IQ of YCM doesn't meet debating standards from the start!

OT: Well, I prefer simply saying "u trollin" against noobs in the TCG to explaining, if I take your "Sinister Serpent" logic. Then again, I [i]would[/i] rather explain why murder is bad than say "Because it is". For me, depends on what the situation is, and what you're trying to prove.

[Exiro]

[quote name='Darkplant' timestamp='1303220474' post='5151402']
No! Of course not! It's just that the generally depressing IQ of YCM doesn't meet debating standards from the start!

OT: Well, I prefer simply saying "u trollin" against noobs in the TCG to explaining, if I take your "Sinister Serpent" logic. Then again, I [i]would[/i] rather explain why murder is bad than say "Because it is". For me, depends on what the situation is, and what you're trying to prove.
[/quote]
So what is it about the murder issue that makes it worthy of being defended in the first place and what is it about Sinister Serpent that makes it not worthy of being defended in the first place.

Or rather: what is the rule and what is the exception?

[DARKPLANT RISING]

[quote name='Exiro Divinus' timestamp='1303379023' post='5156433']
So what is it about the murder issue that makes it worthy of being defended in the first place and what is it about Sinister Serpent that makes it not worthy of being defended in the first place.[/quote]

Sinister Serpent is just another card in a children's card game, except this time it's horribly broken. Saying it should be unlimited only results in minor irritation from the TCG section. On the other hand murder kills people. Only people from the anime can do that with Sinister Serpent.

[Exiro]

[quote name='Darkplant' timestamp='1303382690' post='5156496']
Sinister Serpent is just another card in a children's card game, except this time it's horribly broken. Saying it should be unlimited only results in minor irritation from the TCG section. On the other hand murder kills people. Only people from the anime can do that with Sinister Serpent.
[/quote]
Well, what if I find the yugimonz issue a lot more serious than murder?
Sure, I can sense the difference in significance, but theoretically speaking, we can just call the two of them random issues about different things. As can we do with issues about anything. There should be a systematic way that does not involve the subject.

[Dark]

I'll attempt to make an insightful post despite not knowing much about Yugioh, so your example kind of confuses me.

Normally, the burden of proof lies with someone making a claim. "There is a white dragon breathing fire in my room. Prove me wrong." It doesn't work as a statement because I claimed there to be a white dragon in my room, and I should therefore be the one proving myself correct. Otherwise, any illogical statement that has no way to disprove it would automatically be considered true, which obviously does not make sense.

In what I believe you are saying, you want the burden of proof to lie with the person who is changing the standard position. Essentially, in Pokemon, every single Pokemon starts out being completely unbanned. Then, the burden of proof lies on the members of Smogon or whatever to show that xyz Pokemon is broken and therefore must be banned. Because the standard position of xyz Pokemon has been [i]changed[/i] to banned (assuming the convincing worked), now the burden of proof would lie with those that want the Pokemon unbanned. It would be stupid to have the "pro-banned" community constantly arguing when they've already proven it once.

However, let's take Smogon's predetermined ban list for Generation V. Because those Pokemon were default set to banned from last generation, now people must convince the community to [b]unban[/b] them if they aren't broken. It's similar to Yugioh with banned and limited/unrestricted.

Hopefully you realize that the two situations, although different, are the same. The burden of proof lies with someone making a claim and someone changing the standard at the same time. If someone makes a claim that Arceus should be banned, and the current standard is that Arceus is banned, there is no burden of proof held. However, someone wanting Arceus unbanned would have the burden of proof because he is claiming that Arceus is not broken (and therefore must prove that statement) and also changing the standard. If you are claiming something that is already a standard, it is assumed that the proof is already there from before, and no actual claims were made.

In your real-life example, because murder is [b]currently[/b] illegal, and because the "moral proof" (so to speak) is already in place that murder is illegal, there is no burden of proof on people who want to keep murder illegal. That's how the system is currently, and they do not need to fight for something that is already in place. However, if someone wanted murder to be legal, not only are they making a claim that doesn't already have this "proof" to it, but they are also changing the standard. Because pretty much every "burden of proof" argument is opinion and not fact (in a mathematical argument that has a definite answer and end, one can not refute evidence that is logical, and therefore the standard is unchangeable), the standard and the burden of proof can change infinitely many times. But anyone changing the current standard is also going against the current "proof".

[Infinitus]

Its not that hard to explain why murder is wrong, is it? You make sure no one can pull shenanigans on the debatable issues, and its extremely easy to disprove/argue the extremely obvious ones. Like why murder is wrong.

EDIT: Besides, you start/present an argument, you should be the one to back it up. No one should have to come and prove you wrong. First, the one presenting the argument should prove themselves right.

[AsianGuy1137]

Very interesting topic, especially the murder one. But suppose the death of one person would result in the prevention of the death of many others and will ultimately benefit society as a whole. Or even put that to a stretch, to kill an innocent person, you might save ten, or a hundred, or a thousand. What would be the main argument for or against that then? Legal codes are not meant to be all inclusive which leaves plenty of room for civilized debate, especially on questions with ambiguous moral dilemmas attached.

[Vough]

[quote name='AsianGuy1137' timestamp='1304568093' post='5188974']
Very interesting topic, especially the murder one. But suppose the death of one person would result in the prevention of the death of many others and will ultimately benefit society as a whole. Or even put that to a stretch, to kill an innocent person, you might save ten, or a hundred, or a thousand. What would be the main argument for or against that then? Legal codes are not meant to be all inclusive which leaves plenty of room for civilized debate, especially on questions with ambiguous moral dilemmas attached.
[/quote]

You and your hypothetical human sacrifices >.<

I believe that you need to back up your argument with facts. Then after that, you can say, "Prove me wrong" =P

As for the murder one, it should stay illegal because, regardless of morality, taking life is wrong, and no one deserves to die, no matter what. Life in prison is FAR worse =P

As for the hypotheticals, I fail to see how killing an innocent person would save thousands, but that's all subjective. Shouldn't the innocent person take his own life for such a cause? Or shouldn't you?

[Dark]

...a 2.5 month bump? It [i]is[/i] Debates, though, so maybe it's for the better.

[i]regardless of morality, taking life is wrong, and no one deserves to die, no matter what[/i]

"taking life is wrong"

That [b]is[/b] morality. <___<

[Ieyasu Tokugawa]

[quote name='Vough' timestamp='1311750831' post='5391036']
As for the murder one, it should stay illegal because, regardless of morality, taking life is wrong, and no one deserves to die, no matter what.
[/quote]
My father has come home drunk and is on a rampage. He's gotten a hold of the knife and is getting ready to stab my mother. I tackle him and stab him with the knife instead, hitting a vital area and killing him.

Was I wrong to save my mother and kill the man trying to kill her?

[Vough]

[quote name='Miror B.' timestamp='1311821785' post='5394017']
My father has come home drunk and is on a rampage. He's gotten a hold of the knife and is getting ready to stab my mother. I tackle him and stab him with the knife instead, hitting a vital area and killing him.

Was I wrong to save my mother and kill the man trying to kill her?
[/quote]

Murder is wrong, not self-defense. What I'm trying to say is killing someone for a greedy reason/no reason/stupid reason is wrong and defending oneself is different than murder.

If you think murder is right, than would you mind if someone killed you?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Assuming that your goal in making an argument is to convince others that your argument is right, and that this is what your goal should be in making an argument, you can't go wrong with supporting evidence whether it is being demanded of you or not.

[quote name='Dark']

But anyone [attempting to change] the current standard is also going against the current "proof". [/quote]

There need not be such an official, single proof for a moral belief shared by a sufficient amount of different people to become standard as the one you're paranthetically referring to; different people can have different ways of coming to a given common belief.