- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.
The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.
But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself
Burden of proof - Debatepedia
For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.
My statements are as such
1) registration is harassment to me and those who want it have failed to establish what benefit I get from it
and to me that is not worth a common five pound bag of garden manure.
The Constitution lists THE RIGHT TO VOTE in five different places. I have to register to use it. Tell this to somebody who will shed tears with you before the same altar.
The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.
But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself
Burden of proof - Debatepedia
For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.
what in God's name does that have to do with anything
apples to cinderblocks again?
no one has ever used registering to vote to deprive people of that right (which is not a constitutional right per se)
Your moronic analogy is what you would call a false equivalency or whatever your Jr High debate protocol book calls it
Actually under our legal system in any case where the rights of the people are being infringed the burden of proof for its necessity and that this is the gentlest way to achive the desired goal is left to the state to prove.
If you want MORONIC - read your own post. Nobody is trying to deprive you of your rights to bear arms.
And by your own admission, you would not recognize a debate manual if it introduced itself to you.
Nobody is infringing upon your rights.
Honestly, if they would just focus on due process they would get most those types of laws asked for. I don't think anyone would argue that a person convicted of a crime loses "some" rights. This of course should always have a restoration process but we already have that, all we need to do is tweak it.In a free society, the burden should always be on those who wish to limit freedom. Thus when some control freak starts arguing for "registration" or "Magazine Capacity limits" and then claims we don't meet our burden when we cannot demonstrate (to their satisfaction which of course is an unreachable goal) that
1) every case of registration has led to confiscation
2) or that magazine limits will always lead to further limits
we should reject their parameters for the dishonest BS it is
No we don't have a duty to prove anything
rather the freedom suckers have the burden of proving that
1) any law they wish to impose has to meet these tests
a) constitutionally sound (that kills most of them)
b) will actually apply mainly to criminals not honest people
c) has no chance of being used to disarm the law abiding
d) actually has an evidentiary foundation that said laws have decreased crime when enacted
2) right now none of the crap the democratic party proposes meets any of those tests
so those who are water carriers for feinswine and Schummer define the debate with the premise that registration or other requirements imposed only on legal gun owners is a good and we should have to prove that such schemes always lead to confiscation
that is nonsense
registration in itself is evil and has no usefulness
Honestly, if they would just focus on due process they would get most those types of laws asked for. I don't think anyone would argue that a person convicted of a crime loses "some" rights. This of course should always have a restoration process but we already have that, all we need to do is tweak it.
I think some of them fall under that. I also think there are some groups out there that truly don't know the first thing about firearms and just go on assumptions. If they would cooperate and ask for criminal control versus trying prior restraint tactics they would find help from our side.because their goal is to punish people for opposing their socialist agenda
The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.
But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself
Burden of proof - Debatepedia
For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.
Nobody is infringing upon your rights.
Actually under our legal system in any case where the rights of the people are being infringed the burden of proof for its necessity and that this is the gentlest way to achive the desired goal is left to the state to prove.
when you say NOBODY you LOSE if I can find just ONE person
BS
you pretend "infringing" doesn't even exist rather INFRINGEMENT is only possible when the government completely bans all guns
sorry, we don't buy that crap. having to have a license to carry a pistol is an INFRINGEMENT on the Right to KEEP AND BEAR arms
Then fer crying out loud, the majority of all gun control arguments could not be held to that standard and when discussing your standards, I have to define standards as specious. He is correct in stating that when a government is discussing further limitations on it's citizens freedoms, the burden of proof is on the government. Is that incorrect??
If I were to ask you for compelling evidence that registration could not empower future confiscation efforts, you absolutely could not do so with any valid logic. I can state, based upon absolute logical inference, that it very well could. Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you, the burden of proof that it will not is on those that propose gun registration.
You are in essence arguing from ignorance. While you may very well claim I am as well, one of us is wrong. If I am wrong and registration does not lead to confiscation in our country, then you are not harmed. If you are wrong, I am harmed. The physicians maxim seems to be an appropriate standard in this case. "First, do no harm".
A 200 dollar tax to own and a forfeit of my 4th amendment rights in order to own a machine gun seems like infringement. If you tried to do that with voting you would get a mob so id say there might be infringement there.
I am the person you are debating here. My statement was clearly meant to those in this debate right here. Not anybody in Washington DC who does not have the power to do anything anyway.
You are debating me so it is MY VIEWS that you can criticize. I am NOT responsible for any of your demonic enemies or what they may believe.
But nice attempt to move the goal posts to a different field altogether and invoke your political enemies at the same time. :doh:shock:
I think some of them fall under that. I also think there are some groups out there that truly don't know the first thing about firearms and just go on assumptions. If they would cooperate and ask for criminal control versus trying prior restraint tactics they would find help from our side.
Then fer crying out loud, the majority of all gun control arguments could not be held to that standard and when discussing your standards, I have to define standards as specious. He is correct in stating that when a government is discussing further limitations on it's citizens freedoms, the burden of proof is on the government. Is that incorrect??
If I were to ask you for compelling evidence that registration could not empower future confiscation efforts, you absolutely could not do so with any valid logic. I can state, based upon absolute logical inference, that it very well could. Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you, the burden of proof that it will not is on those that propose gun registration.
You are in essence arguing from ignorance. While you may very well claim I am as well, one of us is wrong. If I am wrong and registration does not lead to confiscation in our country, then you are not harmed. If you are wrong, I am harmed. The physicians maxim seems to be an appropriate standard in this case. "First, do no harm".
The burden of proof in debate is ALWAYS on those who make claims of fact to prove them with verifiable evidence. That is true not matter on what side of any issue one comes down on.
But gollygeewilikers - don't take my word for it by itself
Burden of proof - Debatepedia
For example, if one is against gun registration because they claim that it will lead to confiscation, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof that this indeed is the case showing a strong statistical relationship between the two. This would require work and research. That in and of itself immediately excludes most people who rely on personal pompous pontifications and statements of extremist belief in these discussions as they tend to display the work ethic of a dead inch worm when it comes to proving their claims with verifiable evidence that they are more than just anecdotes or exceptions.
Nobody is denying you any right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?