A starting point
Debate:
What is the difference between a formal and informal debate?
A formal debate is a structured and regulated form of discussion that often occurs in a more official environment, such as a courtroom, legislative chamber, or academic institution. It typically follows a set of regulations and guidelines, with participants expected to adhere to a specific format and code of conduct. In a formal debate, individuals argue in favor of or against a resolution or claim, and their arguments must be supported by evidence and logical reasoning. The objective of formal debate is to convince others, not their opponent, of one’s stance on a particular issue by presenting a well-constructed argument and effectively countering opposing viewpoints.
An informal debate is typically more relaxed and spontaneous, often occurring in everyday conversations, online forums, or informal settings. It doesn’t adhere to a specific structure or format, allowing participants to freely express their opinions and engage in argumentation without strict adherence to rules or guidelines. Informal debates are characterized by open discussion and the exchange of ideas, with no clear winner or loser at the end. Participants may use personal anecdotes, opinions, and emotions to support their arguments. There is generally more flexibility and creativity in presenting one’s position, making informal debates more interactive and participatory, and allowing the exploration of a wide range of ideas and perspectives without the constraints of formal rules and regulations.
Evidence:
In supporting any position (or claim) the adherent should base that position on evidence. The Oxford Dictionary says evidence is:
“(T)he available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
In a formal debate adhering to standard debate rules, evidence serves as a supporting rationale for the veracity of a claim, encompassing instances, reasoning, studies, data, or expert viewpoints. Evidence may also pertain to research conducted in prepared debates. The National Speech and Debate Association outlines evidence as inclusive of, but not restricted to: facts, figures, or instances attributable to a particular, identifiable, authoritative source utilized to bolster a claim.
In an informal debate the meaning of evidence is more general and therefore additional types of evidence can be used.
There are several types of evidence. Here are 16 which can be used in either a court of law, or the court of opinion. In order to establish a proposition at least one of these must be used if said proposition is to be accepted.
- Documentary Evidence: Includes any form of recorded information; written, audio, or video.
- Direct Evidence: Evidence that, if believed, directly proves a fact.
- Demonstrative Evidence: Consists of objects, images, models, displays, or other tools that illustrate facts.
- Empirical Evidence: Information acquired through systematic observation, measurement, or experimentation.
- Testimonial Evidence: Evidence derived from a person’s testimony or statement.
- Statistical Evidence: A type of evidence that uses numerical data and statistical analysis to support an argument or claim.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that does not directly prove a fact but allows for logical inferences to be made about the facts.
- Physical Evidence: Any tangible item that has some connection or information pertaining to a fact, debate or discussion.
- Individual Physical Evidence: Evidence with unique physical characteristics specific to an individual source, such as fingerprints or DNA.
- Trace Evidence: The general term used for the small, often overlooked, pieces of evidence.
- Forensic Evidence: Evidence obtained through scientific methods.
- Logical Evidence: Also known as a logical argument, where one or more premises are true or likely true, leading to a conclusion that must be true or more likely true.
- Expert Evidence: Any fact or opinion draw on from trained experts in a given field.
- Character Evidence: Evidence used to demonstrate the moral standing of a person based on their reputation in their respective community.
- Corroborating Evidence: Used to strengthen, add to, authenticate or confirm already-existing evidence.
- Facts: That which is actual or information presented as having objective reality.
Evidence, in either a formal or informal debate, must support the claim or proposition or resolution. Evidence, therefore, is not the same as absolute proof. Instead, it is the body of facts or arguments leading to a valid truth.
Argument:
An argument, as opposed to the common usage where emotions sometimes rule, in debate means making claims based on logical reasoning and evidence.
In a debate an argument has three parts: the claim, the data, and the warrant. The claim is a proposition, position, or resolution. Data is the evidence for a position. Warrant is the reasoning justifying the claim and evidence (or data).
An argument, then, is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions where the premises are true or more likely true than false. Importantly, at least one conclusion is reached based on these premises. In a logical argument, the requirement is that all the premises must be true (or more likely true than false), and if these premises are true, the conclusion must follow and must be true (or more likely true than false).
Such arguments are usually either deductive or inductive. A deduction argument would be where the conclusion comes from a set of premises. For example:
P1. Cincinnati is a city in southern Ohio.
P2. Tom lives slightly north of Cincinnati.
C1. Therefore, Tom lives in Ohio.
An inductive argument is series of premises that are probably true leading to a probable conclusion. For example:
P1. Most people who live in or near Cincinnati are Reds Fans.
P2. Tom lives in or near Cincinnati.
C1. Therefore, Tom is probably a Reds Fan.
Burden of Proof:
In general, the burden of proof (Latin: “onus probandi”) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to warrant for its position
In a formal debate the burden of proof lays with whoever is making the claim, the affirmative of a resolution. It is a situation in which one debater has a special obligation to provide evidence for a position, whereas the other debater technically needs only provide evidence negating that position (although providing additional evidence is advisable for such debates).
In a legal dispute, only one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. It means the obligation to provide evidence for one’s assertion.
In an informal debate or discussion the burden of proof is equally carried because strict debate structure is forgone. It certainly is not the legal definition which is uniquely defined (innocent until proven guilty.)
So when two or more people are informally discussing/debating an issue such as the meaning of a Scripture or the existence of God both need to support their positions with evidence, and show warrant for that evidence.
Thus,
- Testimony is evidence.
- Eyewitness is evidence.
- A historical document is evidence.
- Physical findings ( such as archaeology) is evidence.
- Foreknowledge is evidence.
- Objective truth is evidence.
- Observation is evidence.
- Testability is evidence.
- Valid/Sound logical argument is evidence.
However,
- Questions are not evidence, nor are they arguments (although they can lead to an argument).
- Doubt is not evidence nor is it an argument.
- Skepticism is neither evidence nor an argument.
- Objections are not evidence and they are not arguments.
- Opinions are just that, but do not count as evidence unless it is the opinion of an expert in a given field.
Understanding the diverse nature of debates, the significance of evidence and its various forms, the correct construction and interpretation of arguments, and the shared or individual nature of the burden of proof are key to preventing misunderstandings when conflicting perspectives are exchanged.
Linked sources:
National Speech and Debate Association
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment