ArmandTulsen, on 23 February 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:
That's not how it works. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
You're quite right. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim: "X happened" or "Y is in that box". Technically, someone making an absolute negative assertion--"X did NOT happen" or "Y is NOT in that box" also has a burden of proof, though this does not relieve the same burden from the person making the positive claim.
However, Risk of Fire and others here are also quite right. In social discourse, false or unsupported allegations can be nearly as damaging as the truth. There is a famous story in politics (attributed to any number of politicians, and appearing in countless versions) in which a politician makes an outrageous claim about an opponent. Upon hearing this, one of his friends says: "But how can you say that? We know he doesn't eat babies!" To which the first politician responds: "I know he doesn't eat babies. I just want to hear the b*****d deny it."
Communication experts will tell you: When addressing a false and potentially damaging claim, NEVER directly repeat the claim yourself; that is, never say "These allegations that I eat babies are completely false!" In people's minds, this statement further associates you with the concept of baby-eating. It doesn't matter how thoroughly you demonstrate your innocence of the deed; you will always, at best, be remembered as the guy who PROBABLY doesn't eat babies. We are wired to accept most claims at face value, and it takes effort to be skeptical.