The Burden-of-Proof Debate Itself
In close BQ rounds, debaters sometimes argue directly about who holds the burden of proof and how high that burden should be — a meta-level argument you must be ready to have. You will be able to argue for a specific standard of proof and defend it.
Arguing for a Standard
Rather than assuming the judge already agrees on a standard, strong debaters explicitly argue for one: 'Because this resolution asks about a factual, empirically-testable claim, the standard should be preponderance of scientific evidence,' versus 'Because this resolution asks a value question with no empirical test, the standard should be internal logical consistency.' Naming your standard gives the judge an explicit tool to decide the round with, rather than leaving it to their personal intuition.
Contesting an Opponent's Proposed Standard
If an opponent proposes a standard that unfairly favors them, such as demanding 'scientific proof' for an inherently philosophical claim like the existence of objective moral truths, call this out directly: argue that such a standard is not achievable in principle for this type of resolution and would make the debate impossible to have fairly.
Resolution: 'Resolved: Objective moral truths exist.' The Negative demands 'scientific proof' of moral truths.
The Affirmative responds in rebuttal: 'My opponent's standard of scientific proof is impossible to meet for any philosophical claim, including his own counter-thesis that morality is subjective — no lab experiment can measure subjectivity either. The fair standard here is which position is best supported by moral reasoning and our shared experience of moral disagreement and progress, and I've met that standard.'
1. Why should a debater explicitly propose a standard of proof rather than leaving it unstated?
2. If an opponent proposes an impossible standard (like demanding lab-based scientific proof for a purely philosophical claim), the best response is to:
Answer all 2 to check.
Explicitly propose and defend a standard of proof suited to the resolution's type of claim, and contest unfair standards directly.