I've been browsing some recent discussions in this forum, and I've come across some strange views on 'burden of proof'. Seems my default assumption on the issue isn't necessarily shared by others.
My default assumption is that...if you make a claim, you back it up. That's how it works in pretty much any field. "I think this is true, and now I will show you why".
Some people apparently believe that the burden of proof goes the other way. As in, you make an assertion, and it's true unless someone proves you wrong. "I think this is true, and now you have to show why it's not."
This seems so fundamentally flawed as a premise that I felt it merits a discussion. What do you think, Babblers? What are your understandings of the burden of proof in a debate?