III.

PRESUMPTION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

A. The Status Quo

In debates about propositions of policy, affirmative advocates support change, usually favoring
new governmental policy. Such supported change requires departure from the status quo,
usually described in terms of currently existing structures or laws. The status quo is the current
system or the way things are now.

B. Presumption
In debate presumption is a predisposition favoring a given side in a dispute. It describes the
psychological predisposition of a listener or decision maker. Presumption may be viewed from
two perspectives: the judicial perspective and the policy perspective.

judicial perspective: The judicial perspective offers a constant understanding of presumption: It

always favors the status quo, or a presumed condition (for example, presumption of innocence).
The judicial perspective may be used when the option exists of continuing the structure of the
status quo. With this option there may, of course, be minor repairs and other modifications, but
the essential features of the status quo will continue until good and sufficient reason is given to
justify a change. This perspective is mandated in the courts.

From the judicial perspective presumption favors the status quo. That is, the existing state of
affairs will continue until good and sufficient reason is given for changing it. In debates using the
judicial perspective, the presumption favors the status quo and the affirmative has the burden of
proof—the risk of the proposition. Because change involves risk (and cost), the advocates of
change must prove that it is worthwhile to take that risk. The advocates who affirm the
proposition are required to prove their case. They must provide good and sufficient reason for
adopting or accepting the proposition, and they must convince those who render the decision. If
they do not fulfill the burden of proof, they will lose

policy perspective: The policy perspective is used when change is inherent in the status quo.

How does one determine the burden of proof in such cases? The classic rule of burden of proof
applies: One who asserts must prove.

C. The Burden of Proof

The risk of the proposition; the obligation of the affirmative, in order to overcome the
presumption against the proposition, to give good and sufficient reasons for accepting the
proposition.

What amounts to satisfactory proof? The answer depends on the rules governing the debate and
the judgment of the person or group empowered to decide. At a minimum the affirmative must
go more than halfway in convincing the decision makers. Thus, for example, if 49 percent of the
members of your club vote for a motion and 51 percent vote against it, the motion fails. If 50
percent vote for the motion and 50 percent against it, the motion fails.

a burden of proof vs. the burden of proof

this distinction applies to both the judicial and the policy perspective. The burden of proof
always rests on the affirmative, who must prove that the proposition should be adopted or
accepted. However, a burden of proof may rest on either the affirmative or the negative.
Whoever introduces an issue into the debate has a burden of proof. The advocate must support
the argument he or she introduces.

D. The Burden of Refutation

—the obligation to refute, or respond to, opposing arguments. This burden also referred to as
the burden of “clash” rests on the advocate whose case is weakened by an argument advanced
by an opponent. The advocate must refute that argument or suffer damage to the case.

IV. TYPES OF DEBATE PROPOSITIONS

A. Propositions of Fact

A proposition of fact is a type of descriptive claim. In a debate on a proposition of fact, the

affirmative maintains that a certain thing is true, while the negative maintains that it is false. Our
law courts are almost entirely concerned with propositions of fact.

Propositions of fact also may be debated as precursors, or as a part of debates on propositions

of value or propositions of policy, because it is frequently essential to establish relevant facts
before reaching decisions about values or policies.

B. Propositions of Value

A proposition of value is a type of evaluative claim. Values are our beliefs about right and wrong,
good and bad. So a proposition of value essentially makes a statement that something is good or
bad. In a debate on a proposition of value, the affirmative maintains that a certain belief, value,
or fact is justified, that it conforms to the definition or criteria appropriate to evaluate the issue.

C. Propositions of Policy

A policy proposition is a type of advocate claim. It calls for change. CEDA defines policy
resolutions as those “phrased so as to affirm the value of future and specific governmental
change, and suggesting a broad but predictable array of potential affirmative plans.” In a debate
on a proposition of policy, the affirmative maintains that a policy or course of action should be
adopted.