03/23/2021 (Tue) 18:16:42
Let me make it easier for you, in any debate on law, one side has to make a case for why having the law is better than not having it, the opposing side does not have to make a case of their own, they simply have to invalidate the claim being made by the side that advocates for a law being passed or not being repealed.
You need to show why a law is necessary, they simply have to maintain that there us no reason to belive the law is necessary.
You are arguing for "guilty", the burden is on you to justify your position, but they are arguing "not guilty" which is not the same as arguing fir "innocent", therefore all they have to do is refute your justifications, they are NOT required to provide justifications as to why it would be better to NOT have such a law.
The nonexistence of a law is by default preferable to having one, unless a case could be made for its existence.