Advocates’ Burdens

1. Advocates’ Burdens Key concepts related to argumentation

2. Who has the obligation to prove what to whom? • Steroid use in major league baseball • Does Roger Clemens have to prove he didn’t take steroids? • Or do the baseball commissioner and the media have to prove he didn’t? • Evolution Versus Intelligent Design • Do advocates of “Intelligent Design” have the burden to prove their theory is superior to evolution? • Or do evolutionists have the burden to disprove Intelligent Design? • Public smoking controversy: • Do nonsmokers have to prove 2nd hand smoke is harmful? • Or can smokers presume there is such a thing as “smoker’s rights”?

3. Who has the burden of proof—continued? • Religion • Does the burden fall on theists to prove there is a God? • Or do atheists have to prove God doesn’t exist? • Gay Marriage • Do gays have to demonstrate that gay marriages are constitutional? • Or do opponents have to demonstrate that gay marriages are unconstitutional? • Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice: • Should we presume that human life begins at conception? • Or should we presume life begins when a fetus is viable, e.g., capable of surviving outside the womb?

4. burden of proof • +/- Grading system • Should + and – grades be awarded? • Are whole letter grades better? • Oil drilling in Alaska • Do proponents of drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve have the obligation to prove there is no environmental risk? • Or do opponents have the obligation to prove the environment or wildlife would be harmed?

5. Difficulty of proving a negative • It may be difficult or impossible to prove a negative. • E.T., UFOs and other conspiracy theories: How could one prove that aliens aren’t among us, or that there isn’t intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? • “Absence of evidence doesn’t equal evidence of absence.” • IRAQ and WMDs: How could Iraq have proven that it didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction? • Hans Blix, David Kay, and others stated repeatedly that they couldn’t find any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons

6. Burden of proof • burden of proof: the responsibility of an advocate to offer good and sufficient reasons for changing another’s beliefs, attitudes, or behavior. • prima facie case: a case that “at first glance” stands on its own, e.g., that a reasonable person would accept upon first hearing it.

7. Presumption • Presumption favors the status quo or the existing state of affairs • Better safe than sorry,” “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” “look before you leap” • existing policies and laws should remain as they are, unless or until a convincing case for change has been made. • based on risk assessment—known risks of the status quo versus unknown risks associated with change

8. Types of presumption • Artificial presumption: assigned by law or social convention • Law: presumption of innocence until proven guilty in criminal law • Science: in science, the null hypothesis is presumed to be true unless the results of an experiment are statistically significant • Sports: in boxing, the challenger has to beat the titleholder, not just fight to a draw. • Natural presumption: derived from natural order or divine right • Bill of Rights: presumes there are inalienable rights to which all citizens are entitled • Human rights: assumption that all people are entitled to certain, fundamental rights

9. Burden of rebuttal orburden of clash • Burden of rebuttal: Once an advocate has established a prima facie case, the opponent has a corresponding duty to refute or rebut the case. • a reasonable case demands a reasonable response • opponent may choose which aspects of the case to refute or ignore

10. Field dependent versus field invariant argument • Field dependent argument: certain fields or arenas for arguments follow certain rules, conventions, norms • criminal law: “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard • journalism: two independent sources must verify a report • social science research: p < .05 level of significance • Field invariant argument: some types of reasoning and proof are interdisciplinary • cause-effect reasoning • sign reasoning • reasoning by analogy

11. Who has the burden of proof, who enjoys presumption? • In a dispute over whether global warming is taking place or not, and how much is due to human activities? • In a dispute between a husband and wife? • In a dispute between a customer and a store manager? • In a dispute between a teen and a parent over whether to get a tongue stud? • In a dispute between a supervisor and an employee? • In a dispute between an alleged victim of sexual harassment and the alleged harasser?

12. argumentative burdens are situational, contextual • The setting in which an argument takes place affects advocates’ burdens: • criminal court • civil court • media or “court of public opinion” • “dinner table” argument