One team was proving and the other was disproving. They didn't prove he exists either, so they shouldn't have won. It's unfair to even give someone this topic.

Burden of proof was on the other team.

They were both trying to prove a point.

I don't think you understand burden of proof.

I understand it fine in a court of law. His team made the assertion that God does not exist. The same as a prosecutor making the assertion that a defendant committed a crime. It is up to the prosecutor to prove his case that the defendant is guilty. The defending attorney only has to call the evidence against his client into question.

In philosophy, and debate, burden of proof lies on the side making the claim. Typically the claim is something that remains unproven, or is otherwise contrary to the general consensus on the subject. So in this case, there is no evidence for God, and the burden of proof lies on the other team to prove he exists. It makes no sense for the other team to have to prove he [i]doesn't exist.[/i] This would be equivalent to you and I having this conversation: You: I can fly. Me: Prove it. You: Prove that I can't. It wouldn't make any sense, since the general consensus is that human beings can't fly. This private school did a terrible job at organizing this debate, since they basically screwed the negative argument from the beginning by reassigning the BoF to them in the beginning. (For the record, I do believe in God, but this debate was horribly executed.)

I see what you are saying. On that same note though, if someone makes the claim that God does not exist, they should share in their burden of proof and present evidence to support their claim.