Читать книгу Making Arguments: Reason in Context - Edmond H. Weiss - Страница 22

Previously we used the example of a defense attorney who chose not to answer an opponent’s case. In nearly every situation, this is a counterproductive argumentative stance. Only the weakest and least legitimate affirmative cases allow the possibility of a non-response. Obviously, though, even when the negative perceives the affirmative’s argument this way, there is no guarantee that it will look that way to the judges and audiences of argument. Thus, it would be argumentatively self-destructive to fail to answer an opponent’s claims. (What if those judging the argument see the issues altogether differently?)

Advocates must answer their opponents' arguments. This is called “the burden of going forward” with the argument, the responsibility that both sides in a controversy continue to advance their respective sides, as well as respond their opponent’s arguments (the sub-responsibility of rebuttal). The key feature of this responsibility is the “taking up” of the argument. When an advocate launches a set of claims in support of a proposition, he or she is inviting response. The responsibility of going forward indicates that “the ball is in your court,” and that it is the time for counter-advocacy.

It is most important to recognize that the responsibility for going forward with an argument in no way changes the burden of proof. The burden of proof always stays with the proposition, and the side that supports the proposition (in debate, the affirmative; in law, the prosecution or plaintiff; in a deliberative assembly, the maker of a motion). It is the responsibility, or burden, of going forward that alternates, back and forth, between the sides in a controversy as each presents its material.