Apostolic Friends Forum - Burden of proof fallacy

In criminal setting we place a burden of proof on the prosecution because they are accusing a person of a crime.

However in ordinary discussions there is no concept of burden of proof. Both sides have evidence and that evidence is submitted and weighed by all parties involved. No one side has any more of a burden to prove their claims than the other.

In such situations there can be a burden of proof fallacy though. A burden of proof fallacy is a fallacy where one person makes a claim that he is right unless the other side proves him wrong. This is wrong for the reason that just because a claim can't be disproven doesn't mean it is right.

Again a burden of proof fallacy has nothing to do with making a claim and then being obligated to prove it. It has to do with making a claim and asserting its true as long as no one can disprove it.

Of course good discussion etiquette is to bring forward your evidence for a claim and then those opposed can bring forward their evidence. No one has to prove or disprove anything and really they likely can't prove much of anything with a strict sense if proof. They can offer evidence though and hopefully lots of it.