Since I can't talk about this in other places, I figure I'll talk about it here.

So guys, I have always thought that in an argument when somebody makes a certain claim, the one who is asserting a positive must first provide proof, before the opposite side (the negative) has to provide proof.

Example:

Guy: Unicorns are real.
Girl: Do you have any proof that unicorns are real?
Guy: There's no proof that they aren't real.

In this case, is it not true that because the guy couldn't provide any proof for his claim [unicorns are real] then his claim automatically fails and the girl doesn't need to provide proof for the negative [unicorns aren't real]?

Read these for more info if you want:
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fallacy: Burden of Proof