Falconer02 & falcon9 ;)

[elandry]

In formal debate, if I remember my dino days in school, burden of proof rests on the initial claimant.

That's not an 'out' for an informal debate, is it?

Hmmm. This requires some thought. We are obviously not following parliamentary debate procedures, nor are we technically following the prescribed structure of the Americanized classical debate.  I believe our discourses here would most closely resemble the Impromptu debate structure, though one could also argue in favor of the informal debate: 1. Know your subject 2. Attempt to comprehend and request clarification  3. represent yourself honestly. 4. No whining, accept criticism and rudeness with good grace 5. Keep the rebuttals cogent and informative--  some also add "brevity is the soul of wit" to number five, but some subjects require more thorough elucidation than others... as well you demonstrate 

As the resident expert on the niceties of debate, what would be your determination?

[falcon9]

In formal debate, if I remember my dino days in school, burden of proof rests on the initial claimant.
 
This requires some thought. We are obviously not following parliamentary debate procedures, nor are we technically following the prescribed structure of the Americanized classical debate.  I believe our discourses here would most closely resemble the Impromptu debate structure, though one could also argue in favor of the informal debate: 1. Know your subject 2. Attempt to comprehend and request clarification  3. represent yourself honestly. 4. No whining, accept criticism and rudeness with good grace 5. Keep the rebuttals cogent and informative--  some also add "brevity is the soul of wit" to number five, but some subjects require more thorough elucidation than others... as well you demonstrate 

As the resident expert on the niceties of debate, what would be your determination?

While I don't claim to be the resident expert on "niceties" of any sort, the burden of proof criteria would apply to even impromptu/informal debates, (otherwise all manner of unsupported assertions and unreliable hearsay could bog-down the debate itself). Also, regarding any subsequently demanded 'proof supporting a negative assertion', (such as 'prove Santa doesn't exist'), I'd stipulate that the burden of proof requirements apply to 'positive assertions/claims' instead.