> point is that if the bank gives someone a loan in my name, I'll have to prove it wasn't me, it's not the bank who has to prove it was me

They do. When they file for e.g. foreclosure, they're submitting proof to competent authorities. You're disputing that proof because it's bad proof. But they--and the authorities--don't know that. It looks like regular proof. It's a conventional adversarial set-up. It's just incredibly unequal.

What I'm getting at is this isn't some weird switcheroo. It's how contracts work in general.

I'll have to defer to you, I'm not very familiar with these processes, and I don't want to argue more fervently than my limited certainty allows.

I think you two don’t really disagree, one of you is describing what ought to be and the other is describing how the system is currently rigged, unfortunately.