Who needs to prove it?: Burden of proof.

  • 50 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for kidolio
Posted by Kidolio (1688 posts) 13 days, 1 hour ago

Poll: Who needs to prove it?: Burden of proof. (32 votes)

A 19%
B 81%

This was just a question for who the burden of proof falls upon.

The situation: let’s say there are 2 characters Wyatt and Sam in a battle.

Wyatt has been kicked through a mountain with absolutely no injuries and Sam has vaporized a planet with one hit. Who would win?

Arguments

A: Sam would win he can vaporize a planet with a punch and Wyatt has never shown durability to withstand that amount of force.

B: But Wyatt has never been hurt you have to prove that Sam’s attack can hurt Wyatt. Burden of proof is on you to show that Sam’s attack will hurt Wyatt.

Who does Burden of proof fall upon?

Avatar image for darthvaderrocks
#1 Posted by darthvaderrocks (2989 posts) - - Show Bio

B is pretty much classic NLF so definitely B. Besides planet > mountain.

Avatar image for adamantine
#2 Posted by adamantine (2985 posts) - - Show Bio

B would have to prove he can tank planet level attacks.

Avatar image for sup3rn0va
#4 Posted by Sup3rn0va (1991 posts) - - Show Bio

B clearly, though this is very instance specific.

Avatar image for green_skaar
#5 Posted by green_skaar (13069 posts) - - Show Bio

Burden of proof always lies with whom is making the affirmative claim.

Avatar image for bossmountain
#6 Posted by Bossmountain (1733 posts) - - Show Bio

Burden of proof always lies with whom is making the affirmative claim.

^This

Avatar image for army2442
#7 Posted by Army2442 (3550 posts) - - Show Bio

Characters abilities and stats are usually only as great as they have shown so the burden of proof would be on B. For example Itachi's Totsuka has pierced everyone he has used it against but he has only used it twice so you can't argue that it can pierce anyone more durable than Nagato because that is it's greatest feat.

Avatar image for kalkent
#8 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

Vaporizing a planet is like millions of times more powerful than being sent through a mountain and not being hurt...

Avatar image for rbt
#9 Posted by RBT (30501 posts) - - Show Bio

In my experience of debating on comicvine, I've found that the burden of proof always falls upon the guy I'm debating against.

Avatar image for wot_m8
#10 Edited by Wot_m8 (2401 posts) - - Show Bio

Both.

A has to prove Sam can actually vaporize a planet first since he made the claim.

B has to prove that Wyatt can tank it afterwards.

Avatar image for theinsufferable
#11 Edited by TheInsufferable (3406 posts) - - Show Bio

The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim/assuming a position (regardless of whether it's positive, negative, or neutral). In this particular situation, the only data provided is "Wyatt has been kicked through a mountain with absolutely no injuries and Sam has vaporized a planet with one hit." which isn't enough to prove any of those positions with certainty.

Avatar image for reap_ii
#12 Posted by Reap_ii (563 posts) - - Show Bio

So Hulk is Sam and One Punch man is Wyatt...burden of proof is on the NLF argument here.

Avatar image for life_without_progress
#13 Posted by Life_Without_Progress (26144 posts) - - Show Bio

The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim/assuming a position (regardless of whether it's positive, negative, or neutral). In this particular situation, there simply isn't enough data to prove any of those positions with certainty.

This. Basic Logical and Critical Thinking university class stuff, man.

Online
Avatar image for kidolio
#14 Edited by Kidolio (1688 posts) - - Show Bio

I should’ve been more specific

Can Wyatt survive Sam’s hit?

The mountain durability feat is Wyatt’s best feat

The Planet vaporizing feat is Sam’s best feat

They’ve both performed it in the past

Assume that they’re both physically equal with an average American except that B’s durability is very high and A’s attack potency is very high( A is not effected by his own attack)

Avatar image for artoriasabysswalker
#15 Posted by ArtoriasAbyssWalker (667 posts) - - Show Bio

I saw the title and thought this was about Vic Mignogna vs Funimation

Avatar image for theanimal666
#16 Posted by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for kidolio
#17 Edited by Kidolio (1688 posts) - - Show Bio

@theanimal666: No, you asked how Superman can even hurt Saitama because Saitama has never been hurt before. That was your logic and I gave you a feat it was Superman shaking the entire planet with a punch, a feat that Saitama has never been shown to be able to tank.

I wasn’t gonna mention the thread because it wasn’t about the thread it was about your logic vs my logic.

I guess since your here did I get your logic correct on the OP?

Avatar image for theanimal666
#18 Edited by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio

@kidolio: No.

I asked people to prove that Saitama can be harmed in the first place. I've never said that he cannot be.

People are jumping on conclusion with nothing to back-up their claims like "Superman one-shots Saitama".

Avatar image for caocao
#19 Posted by CaoCao (2575 posts) - - Show Bio

Burden of proof always lies with whom is making the affirmative claim.

This.

Avatar image for aka_aka_aka_ak
#20 Edited by Aka_aka_aka_ak (3411 posts) - - Show Bio

@army2442: @sup3rn0va: @adamantine: @darthvaderrocks:

Fucking idiots on this site. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person who makes the claim, it is A that has to prove their position.

"NLF" is a big problem on this site because it's not a fallacy at all. The fallacy would be if B claimed that Wyatt could withstand Sam's attack, but that's not B's position. B does not claim he can tank it, he says we cannot be certain he can't, which is correct.

Damn fucking morons on this site, this is why you can't argue on this site; how the fuck are you supposed to debate people who can't even grasp the concept of burden of proof.

Avatar image for adamantine
#21 Edited by adamantine (2985 posts) - - Show Bio

@aka_aka_aka_ak: calm down dude. You might want to edit this there's no need to get a temp ban over this thread.

You would need to prove both sides of the argument but if A shows his character is planet level then B has to prove his can tank the attacks saying a mountain level attack did nothing isn't enough.

Avatar image for varricpatermann
#22 Edited by VarricPatermann (468 posts) - - Show Bio

A:

Sam would win he can vaporize a planet with a punch and Wyatt has never shown durability to withstand that amount of force.

As long, the guy has feats to shown that Sam vaporize a planet with a punch, he would oneshot Wyatt, as long he don´t show any planetary durability feats. If Wyatt never shown a durability on that level and people claims he still can tank Sam his punch, then it is NLF. Wyatt has to prove his durability.

B:

But Wyatt has never been hurt you have to prove that Sam’s attack can hurt Wyatt. Burden of proof is on you to show that Sam’s attack will hurt Wyatt.

That is NLF. Nonexistence can´t be proven. You have to prove you claim vial feat, or at least via consistent statements.

Avatar image for theanimal666
#23 Edited by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio

@aka_aka_aka_ak said:

@army2442: @sup3rn0va: @adamantine: @darthvaderrocks:

Dam, sandwich on this site. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person who makes the claim, it is A that has to prove their position.

"NLF" is a big problem on this site because it's not a fallacy at all. The fallacy would be if B claimed that Wyatt could withstand Sam's attack, but that's not B's position. B does not claim he can tank it, he says we cannot be certain he can't, which is correct.

Damn fried chicken on this site, this is why you can't argue on this site; how the fudge are you supposed to debate people who can't even grasp the concept of burden of proof.

That's my point (without the insults).

I agree.


Avatar image for kirkseven
#24 Posted by Kirkseven (3653 posts) - - Show Bio

If someone claimed Wyatt (mountain level durability) could survive Sams attack (planet level), the burden of proof should be on the guy defending Wyatt no?

Avatar image for theinsufferable
#25 Posted by TheInsufferable (3406 posts) - - Show Bio

No wonder Battles board is such a mess.

Avatar image for averkill
#26 Edited by Averkill (69 posts) - - Show Bio

A is the correct and better argument, if that's what you're asking for. As for the burden of proof, that would depend on who made what claim first, or who made a claim at all if it was only one of them. That being said, the burden of proof isn't the be-all end-all of debates like some would have you believe, credible arguments can be made without concrete proof of something. This would be one of those scenario's.

Avatar image for stormdriven
#27 Posted by Stormdriven (18361 posts) - - Show Bio

Although it was made with a little too much... vigor and vitriol, I agree with aka. No Limits Fallacy isn’t a real logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim. They need evidence to back it up. If there is no evidence either way, then it’s like what TheInsufferable said.

Avatar image for OniLordAsmodeus
#28 Edited by onilordasmodeus (3434 posts) - - Show Bio

@theanimal666 said:

The purpose of this thread come from this thread.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/saitama-vs-superman-1944294/?page=6#js-message-282

I asked people to back-up their claims about "Superman one-shotting Saitama"...

Some people believes that Superman doesn't need evidence for their claims.

The initial post is kind of hard to follow. Anyway, the burden of proof lays with the whoever is arguing that Saitama can withstand the punch. If mountain level durability is the the best you can prove against a planet buster, then he just doesn't stand up.

Avatar image for lsoon23
#29 Posted by Lsoon23 (1065 posts) - - Show Bio

burden of proof is on A.

Avatar image for noone1996
#30 Posted by Noone1996 (13074 posts) - - Show Bio

Just because a character has never been hurt by something above or below mountain level, that doesn’t mean we can just assume that they can withstand attacks far above their best durability feat. With that logic, we could assume even Galactus couldn’t hurt that character.

Avatar image for mountacnologia
#31 Edited by MountAcnologia (543 posts) - - Show Bio

Definitely B.

Look , it's easy. There's an ordinary human with no powers who's never gotten injured in his entire life. So according to B's logic , the burden of proof should fall on a planet buster that he can hurt the person who is never injured because he has never been hurt ever ? That's classic NLF.

Avatar image for ljayg
#32 Posted by LJayG (1516 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought the concept of the burden of proof was simple. Anyone who makes a claim must back it up. Both have to do it at some point.

Avatar image for faradaysloth
#33 Posted by FaradaySloth (12214 posts) - - Show Bio

A would need to provide burden of proof but it sounds like B is the worse debater.

This is common in manga debates.

Avatar image for paytience
#34 Posted by Paytience (5347 posts) - - Show Bio

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim...

Avatar image for man_of_miracles
#35 Posted by Man_of_Miracles (3598 posts) - - Show Bio

People are arguing NLF isn’t a really fallacy so that they continue to ignore the principal of it and make illogical arguments.

A No Limits Fallacy could be considered to be an offshoot of several different “official” logical fallacies such as hasty generalization.

A No Limits Fallacy is the illogical idea that an ability/phenomenon can be extrapolated to infinity or assumed not to have a maximum limit (especially when dealing with a limited data set).

This is specifically to prevent arguments that scale things to infinity and is mostly applied to fictional arguments since in the real world we typically understand the limits of most phenomena.

Using Saitama as an example.

Ex. Saitama has never been hurt in his manga, therefore his durability is infinite.

NLF counter: Saitama durability is not infinite and can only be assumed to be somewhat above the level of attack that he has been shown to take. Anything above that and we are speculating with no evidence to back the claim.

If someone claims that Saitama’s durability exceeds what has been shown on panel the onus would fall on them to prove that, otherwise you would be asking the other party to prove a negative.

In the OPs example if I were to say “Sam has vaporized a large planet with a punch and the highest level of attack that Wyatt has taken without injury is mountain level, therefore a punch from Sam would kill him” the burden of proof would then fall to the party defending Wyatt as they would need to provide evidence that Wyatt can deal with an attack orders of magnitude beyond what he has shown. Saying “There is no proof he can’t” is not an argument.

Avatar image for anthp2000
#36 Posted by ANTHP2000 (31178 posts) - - Show Bio

Both claims can be affirmative if you word it correctly so that doesn't help. At the end of the day, the burden of proof is just fancy talking to sound like a smartass on CV.

Avatar image for vengefulshot
#37 Posted by vengefulshot (2334 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for richubs
#38 Posted by Richubs (7529 posts) - - Show Bio

The difference between a mountian and planet is so massive that this isn't a comparable thing.

Sam would stomp unless Wyatt's supporters come up with a way to support their garbage NLF

Avatar image for alextheboss
#39 Posted by AlexTheBoss (19670 posts) - - Show Bio
@bossmountain said:
@green_skaar said:

Burden of proof always lies with whom is making the affirmative claim.

^This

Yep.

For this scenario specifically, argument B needs a better argument because just because someone wasn't damaged by a mountain level strike, doesn't mean they can tank a planet level strike. Until Wyatt has shown planetary durability, he doesn't get planetary durability just because he hasn't been hurt yet.

A perfect example is Saitama. He hasn't been hurt yet, but that doesn't mean he has universal durability, so he can't be argued to have universal durability unless he actually gets a feat on that level. So same thing here. Wyatt doesn't get planetary durability until it is proven he has planetary durability.

Avatar image for mooty_pass
#40 Posted by Mooty_Pass (10706 posts) - - Show Bio

IMO, I say both.

How do we know Sam and Wyatt have actually done what they said they did?

OT: Most, likely B.

-We need to see if Wyatt is strong enough to handle an attack from Sam. If, NOT? Then we have our answer to the Winner.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d7ad417f1919
#41 Posted by deactivated-5d7ad417f1919 (115 posts) - - Show Bio

In debate class, they teach you if you make a claim, then you need to back it up.

Avatar image for theanimal666
#42 Edited by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio

@OniLordAsmodeus said:
@theanimal666 said:

The purpose of this thread come from this thread.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/saitama-vs-superman-1944294/?page=6#js-message-282

I asked people to back-up their claims about "Superman one-shotting Saitama"...

Some people believes that Superman doesn't need evidence for their claims.

The initial post is kind of hard to follow. Anyway, the burden of proof lays with the whoever is arguing that Saitama can withstand the punch. If mountain level durability is the the best you can prove against a planet buster, then he just doesn't stand up.

The correct answer is:

"We don't know what can harm Saitama."

We cannot draw a conclusion from his showings.

The burden of proof is on the one that made the claim that Superman can [insert the type of damages here].
What you are doing, like some people here, is shifting the burden of proof.

Avatar image for caocao
#43 Edited by CaoCao (2575 posts) - - Show Bio

After i reread the post, i would say B.

Reason:

Wyatt has been kicked through a mountain with absolutely no injuries and Sam has vaporized a planet with one hit. Who would win?

I understand the introduction as example-feats. Wyatt has been kicked through a mountain (Durability feat) and Sam vaporized a planet (Destruction feat)
After this introduction, both scenarios follow:

A: Sam would win he can vaporize a planet with a punch

The feat already was given by the introduction, before the scenario. (If i understand it wrong, he has of course to prove his claim)

and Wyatt has never shown durability to withstand that amount of force.

That´s correct at this point, if the debater knows Wyatt feats.

B: But Wyatt has never been hurt you have to prove that Sam’s attack can hurt Wyatt.

That is NLF in the second, when the attack is more powerfull, then the durability feats (At least statements), unless the charakter has some special properties, like intang, or a natural resistance against blunt force, etc. that could give a reason, why a stronger attack wouldn´t work.

Burden of proof is on you to show that Sam’s attack will hurt Wyatt.

That´s nonsense. You can´t prove that Sam´s attack will hurt Wyatt, when Wyatt never was hit by an attack on that level. By that logic, beings that are 100000000000000000000000000x more powerfull, couldn´t harm him. That´s not how battles between different verses works. The burden of prove at this point as like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Like @varricpatermann said, you can´t prove the nonexistence. If the enemy doesen´t have shown feats on that level, he loses featwise.

I chose B.

Avatar image for man_of_miracles
#44 Posted by Man_of_Miracles (3598 posts) - - Show Bio

@theanimal666: Incorrect. The burden immediately shifts to the person who claims that Saitama will not be harmed by strikes that exceed any previous damage that Saitama has taken once that claim is made.

The Superman claim is in the super position as Superman has feats of shaking a planet with his strikes. It is proven by feats. On the other hand we have a claim that Saitama will not be harmed by such strikes but that position can not be backed up by evidence or feats.

Avatar image for theanimal666
#45 Posted by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio

People are arguing NLF isn’t a really fallacy so that they continue to ignore the principal of it and make illogical arguments.

A No Limits Fallacy could be considered to be an offshoot of several different “official” logical fallacies such as hasty generalization.

A No Limits Fallacy is the illogical idea that an ability/phenomenon can be extrapolated to infinity or assumed not to have a maximum limit (especially when dealing with a limited data set).

This is specifically to prevent arguments that scale things to infinity and is mostly applied to fictional arguments since in the real world we typically understand the limits of most phenomena.

Using Saitama as an example.

Ex. Saitama has never been hurt in his manga, therefore his durability is infinite.

NLF counter: Saitama durability is not infinite and can only be assumed to be somewhat above the level of attack that he has been shown to take. Anything above that and we are speculating with no evidence to back the claim.

If someone claims that Saitama’s durability exceeds what has been shown on panel the onus would fall on them to prove that, otherwise you would be asking the other party to prove a negative.

In the OPs example if I were to say “Sam has vaporized a large planet with a punch and the highest level of attack that Wyatt has taken without injury is mountain level, therefore a punch from Sam would kill him” the burden of proof would then fall to the party defending Wyatt as they would need to provide evidence that Wyatt can deal with an attack orders of magnitude beyond what he has shown. Saying “There is no proof he can’t” is not an argument.

Wrong.

People accusing others of "no limit fallacy" (which doesn't exist) are making two logical fallacies at the same time.

In the first place, they are making a special pleading for their character, arguing that the ability will not work on their character because... "reasons".

In the second place, they are shifting the burden of proof...

As for the case of Saitama, here you are doing an infamous strawman, nobody said that Saitama can't be hurt, we simply have no proof of what can hurt him for now so assuming otherwise is silly. The answer is simple you cannot speculate about what can hurt him for now. We don't know.

Avatar image for theanimal666
#46 Posted by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio

Just because a character has never been hurt by something above or below mountain level, that doesn’t mean we can just assume that they can withstand attacks far above their best durability feat. With that logic, we could assume even Galactus couldn’t hurt that character.

We can assume that we don't know what can hurt him yet.

Avatar image for man_of_miracles
#47 Posted by Man_of_Miracles (3598 posts) - - Show Bio

@theanimal666: What you said in your reply is absolute nonsense and can be safely ignored.

If you actually read my post you would realize there is no shift in the burden of proof and you can not ask someone to prove a negative.

It’s pretty clear you don’t understand burden of proof at all.

Avatar image for theanimal666
#48 Edited by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio

@man_of_miracles said:

@theanimal666: Incorrect. The burden immediately shifts to the person who claims that Saitama will not be harmed by strikes that exceed any previous damage that Saitama has taken once that claim is made.

The Superman claim is in the super position as Superman has feats of shaking a planet with his strikes. It is proven by feats. On the other hand we have a claim that Saitama will not be harmed by such strikes but that position can not be backed up by evidence or feats.

... No.

The initial claim is that an attack can hurt/one-shot him.

You need, obviously, to prove your claim, to compare the said attack to an attack with a similar power that already hurt the character to claim that he can be hurt by the same attack.

You cannot extrapolate from an unknown data. That's BASELESS.

You are, again, making a strawman....

The position is not "Saitama will not be harmed"...

The position is "we don't know WHAT can harm Saitama".

Avatar image for theanimal666
#49 Edited by TheAnimal666 (432 posts) - - Show Bio

@man_of_miracles said:

@theanimal666: What you said in your reply is absolute nonsense and can be safely ignored.

If you actually read my post you would realize there is no shift in the burden of proof and you can not ask someone to prove a negative.

It’s pretty clear you don’t understand burden of proof at all.

Your lack of comprehension of the argument doesn't invalidate it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore you don't understand the burden of proof.

You are the one making the claim that an attack of force F can hurt him, therefore you must show an attack of that magnitude actually hurting him.

That's how it works for all characters.

Avatar image for emperorthanos-
#50 Posted by emperorthanos- (16900 posts) - - Show Bio

This seems like it was just made because of the saitama vs superman thread. Burden of proof is on both. You need too prove he can bust a planet and your opponent needs prove he can tank it. No selling a mountain level attack isnt proof that he can tank a planet busting one.

Moderator