In the context of a debate, if you say something and my only recourse is to empirically validate it myself, then you have failed your side of the debate.
Can you convince me, through argumentation alone, without me having to empirically validate it, that it is raining beyond ALL doubt?
Or are you suggesting that Con could simply say: "The Earth is round, check it out for yourself" and you'd be satisfied with that as a win for Con?
"Beyond all doubt" is an inherently impossible standard. Remember, it's basically saying that if anyone has any doubt about anything the Contender says, they've lost the debate.
No area involved in the search for truth or fact uses that as a standard, not science, not the justice system, not philosophy. You mention solipsism and have it somewhat on the nose: you can't discount - for example - a malicious powerful demon who has constructed a false reality, or a brain-in-a-vat scenario. Not beyond *all* doubt.
A better course would simply to have stated that the burden of proof in this debate is shared, and that the winner is simply whoever provided the most convincing case for their position. Because, note that the "beyond all doubt" is only on the Contender's side, not yours. Technically speaking, you don't even have to argue your position, just present ANY amount of doubt in the contender's.
I've made my critique, and it is what it is. Beyond "all" doubt is an unreasonable standard you won't find in use anywhere.
In the context of a debate, if you say something and my only recourse is to empirically validate it myself, then you have failed your side of the debate.
Can you convince me, through argumentation alone, without me having to empirically validate it, that it is raining beyond ALL doubt?
Or are you suggesting that Con could simply say: "The Earth is round, check it out for yourself" and you'd be satisfied with that as a win for Con?
"Beyond all doubt" is an inherently impossible standard. Remember, it's basically saying that if anyone has any doubt about anything the Contender says, they've lost the debate.
No area involved in the search for truth or fact uses that as a standard, not science, not the justice system, not philosophy. You mention solipsism and have it somewhat on the nose: you can't discount - for example - a malicious powerful demon who has constructed a false reality, or a brain-in-a-vat scenario. Not beyond *all* doubt.
A better course would simply to have stated that the burden of proof in this debate is shared, and that the winner is simply whoever provided the most convincing case for their position. Because, note that the "beyond all doubt" is only on the Contender's side, not yours. Technically speaking, you don't even have to argue your position, just present ANY amount of doubt in the contender's.
The criteria that the Contender must prove the Earth is a ball "beyond ALL doubt" is a ridiculous standard. No one can win under such a stipulation.