Forum:Who has the burden of proof when making an assertion?

If Person A makes an assertion and Person B questions it, who has the burden of proving or disproving the assertion?

I was on a closed Facebook group today and on one thread, somebody labeled an "entire culture" of a particular country as suffering from Peter Pan Syndrome. I wrote a question asking how long he'd lived in that country, since apparently he was an expert on it's culture. He told me he didn't need to live there to know it had Peter Pan Syndrome and then told me to prove him wrong. I told him "No, you said they have this problem with their culture. So provide evidence" and he argued that I didn't understand how debate works and that he made an assertion and that I could either prove him wrong or leave. I told him that he made an assertion based on nothing and provided no evidence for it so why should I take it seriously. I told him to prove HIMSELF right. And then I told him anybody could make an assertion pulled completely out of their ass with no evidence. I then asserted that he secretly fantasized about having sex with donkeys and dared him to prove me wrong. I was banned from the group.

Thing is, I'm NOT educated on how debates are supposed to work. So I'm wondering, WAS I supposed to prove him wrong? And if so, why? Why wouldn't HE be the one who has to come up with proof?

I'm pretty sure I was right, but I don't know much about the rules of debate, so I'm asking you guys. Was I right? Or was I just an asshole?
 * Customarily, the one making a proposition is obligated to defend it, for the reason you outlined there. That said, "debates" in the real world often do not follow such logic, and many people are quite eager to claim justification without supporting their positions, or to demand a reversal of the burden of proof. Implicit appeals to the status quo or personal opinions may be involved. Next time, you might mention that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence rather than a personal example that may not be appropriate for polite conversation. The possibilities you mention are not mutually exclusive. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback AND for the proper way of putting it "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" I wasn't trying to convince anybody of anything. My initial comment was just a snarky rhetorical question calling him out on his judgement of a culture in a place he'd never been. I initially said stuff along the lines of "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" and he just called me a dumbass and said I didn't know how a debate works. This was neither a person, nor GROUP that cared about "polite conversation". But this guy wasn't an admin for the group so why was I kicked off for disagreeing with him? It's not like I was wrong that I required no proof to dismiss his assertion, as you said "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" and I doubted any admins would get butthurt over me arguing with some random user. Hmm... --User:Mr. Grimm (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gee, I wonder if the country in question was Japan. at its finest! Anyway, yeah, what the person above said. Why do you care so much about following "the rules of debate"? It's not like there's some Debate Police who will throw you in jail if you don't. The person is obviously full of shit. I would have probably just gone straight to throwing cultural stereotypes back in their face; if they're from the U.S., probably with some remark about how he's obviously a Bible-thumping gun-loving racist. Ooh, or if my hunch about the target of the remarks is right, that's just begging for a dig about the atomic bombings. "Yeah, mature adult cultures display their maturity by incinerating entire cities." --Ymir (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. It was Japan. Hm... maybe he was right? I mean, I deliberately chose not to say which culture and someone still figured out which one. Nevermind, just looked up Orientalism. So I'm guessing that this is just a common stereotype made by people who've never traveled abroad then? The reason I cared was because I was thinking "I dunno, maybe I AM doing this wrong" I never actually asserted that he was WRONG, just that he wasn't qualified to assess a culture for a place he'd never been to. Anyway, that's a good argument to make back. Thanks for the feedback! --User:Mr. Grimm (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Burden of proof" is a rarely a useful concept, and you'd be better off forgetting about it. All that matters here is: if he wants you to change your beliefs, he needs to make the effort (if that is possible) to convince you your beliefs are wrong; conversely, if you want him to change his beliefs, then you need to make the effort (if that is possible) to convince him that he is wrong; or, one or both of you could decide you don't care about what the other believes, or that the effort isn't worth your while. It doesn't matter who has the "burden of proof", all that matters is whether either or both or neither of you are motivated to try to change the other's views, for the person who wants the change in belief has to make the effort (but even with effort, nothing is guaranteed.) And, if you are trying to convince others to change their beliefs, bringing up the topic of donkey sex is a strategy unlikely to lead to success, no matter how logically valid you think your point may be. If you want to convince others, you need to search for the arguments that might convince them, not the arguments which convince you. Whether an argument is logically valid or not in the abstract, is far less important than whether it will appeal to your audience. 09:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, anyone who uses the term "Peter Pan syndrome" isn't worth arguing with. File them along with people who use terms like "big pharma" - it's a red flag to tell you that their knowledge is sketchy at best. Of course, when someone is wrong on the internet, it's impossible not to feel the need to show them the error of their ways but, in the end, it very seldom comes to an amicable resolution. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole group was filled with idiots. But they were entertaining so I would go on there anyway. And I spoke to SOME cool people who know what they're talking about. But for the most part, group of idiots. @Zack Martin I was just trying to prove that any assertion can be made wildly without justification. But yeah, I see what you're talking about. --User:Mr. Grimm (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)