The burden of proof

In a debate, who has the burden of proof?

a. Russel's teapot - the one who posits the claim
Issues: Ambiguity and semantics, who is the one truly making the claim?

b. The one who is against the majority. IE: The world isn't flat, but who had the burden of proof?
Issues: Society's majority does not necessarily reflect the rational choice.

c. Guilty until proven innocent. Whichever has worse effects must be proven to be true.
Issues: False Negatives.

Freedomfight

 

yeah totaly,....

 

I say the person who makes the claim needs to back it up, not the other way around. To say anything else is utterly ridiculous.
With your examples:

The people claiming the world is flat need to offer evidence, as do the people claiming the world is round. As an outside observer listening to their idea, I surely don't need to present any evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last example.

 

Think about it though.

When the word was largely believed to be flat, scientists were forced with the burden of proof. It was not two sides pushing opposite sides, rather scientists proving that the world was indeed ROUND.

The point is that the burden of proof is really an arbitrary line. Stong believers in anything will draw the proof on the opposing side.