Replies

In courts of law and other arenas of formal argument, there are two kinds of burdens of proof: the ultimate burden of persuasion, and the burden of producing evidence.

In the usual civil trial, the case is decided by the preponderance of the evidence, meaning that neither side has an advantage, but whichever side puts forward the most and best evidence wins. The same principle applies in formal debates.

With that in mind, in your argument, neither side should have an inherent advantage. The issue should be decided in favor of whomever has presented the best evidence.

There is also the burden of producing evidence. This refers to the obligation of each side to produce evidence to establish their claims and refute the claims of the other side.

In the usual civil trial, the plaintiff or petitioner initially has the burden of producing enough evidence to make at least a prima facie case. This is a bare minimum of evidence that, if unanswered, would be enough to win the case or argument.

Once the plaintiff or petitioner has presented a prima facie case, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the defense. If the defense brings forward enough evidence, the burden shifts back to the other side to offer evidence in rebuttal. If the defense fails though to present any credible evidence, they should lose because they have not meet their burden to produce evidence.

My analysis of your argument is that the burden of persuasion should be a preponderance of the evidence, which makes both sides even. Since you have brought forward evidence for your point of view, you have put the burden on your opponent to bring forward evidence to counter your case.

If your opponent fails to bring forward evidence sufficient to counter what you have offered, you should be seen as the winner. If his evidence outweighs what you have presented, you need to bring forward enough additional evidence to counter his claims.

In the end, assuming both of you produce evidence to satisfy your respective burdens to produce evidence, the argument should be decided based on whomever has produced the best evidence for their side.

the so-called cap-and-trade bill, which would levy harsh fines on energy consumption that harms the environment.

People live in two environments, the so-called "natural" environment and a man-made environment. Disruption of the man-made environment has the more immediate effects on human health and welfare. This can be seen by the fact that people can live in a wide variety of "natural" environments, some more inclement than others. To do so effectively, though, they have to create a specialized environment designed to mitigate fluctuations in "natural" temperature, precipitation, sunshine, and growing cycles. Almost no one in any civilization lives in the "natural" environment unbuffered by a manmade environment. It's extremely difficult and very dangerous to do.

The cap and trade bill does very, very little to change any effect that man has on the "natural" environment, but it seems almost deliberately designed to disrupt the principal environment in which people live and prosper. It seems bent on the destruction of the human ecosystem.

OK, this may be one of the few times I will actually have the chance to ever thank a lawyer for his/her expertise and opinion. Thank you.

As I said earlier, I am getting everything I asked for and more in my quest for supportive evidence and winning arguments to take my opponent to the mat for the final count. Unfortunately, I must admit that this person has actually resorted to being personal and emotional in their defense of the indefensible.