Resoved: not all property is capital

The question of what is and what is not capital is one very much so pertinent to American society, especially considering our country's conformity to capitalist principles. This system of buying and selling is an integral part of our society without which we would be unable to maintain commerce. However, right along side this wonderful system comes the danger in that we believe anything and everything that is owned is for sale. Furthermore we falsely believe that it is even possible to sell all the property we possess. Because of I adamantly believe that this mindset is detrimental to capitalism, and that it is a false sentiment based in a limit perspective - I hereby affirm that "Not all property is Capital". = Definitions = For the sake of clarity, Property[1] will be understood as "something that is owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by someone" Intellectual Property[2] will be understood as "intangible property that is the result of creativity (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights)" I see these as acceptable definitions to accompany the one offered by my opponent. If there is any objection to these terms, my opponent may protest them so long as he can offer adequate warrant. = Framework = It should be noted that by phrasing the resolution in the manner my opponent has chosen, he has prescribed himself the burden to prove that all property is capital. This means that if I can show even one type of property that is not capital, that any type of property is unable to be capital, or that my opponent has done an unsatisfactory job in proving their stance I will win this debate. Relying solely on simplified illustrations to prove one's point is unsatisfactory, as it narrows the scope of the debate for the voters, and ultimately defeats the educational quality of debate. Therefore in order to assert that all property is capital, my opponent should set a criterion that property must fulfill in order to be capital. This removes a huge level of anecdotal fallacy, as well as does it establish an objective standard by which the voters can weight the debate. = Arguments = 1. Intellectual Property- a. Art The first argument of the Pro is that Intellectual Property does not constitute capital, as it only truly exists in a person's mind. A perfect example of this would be a drawing of Mickey Mouse; where a Disney cartoonist to draw Mickey to be put on T-Shirt, then Mickey's image would adorn the shirt, but he himself would not. It would be only his image, as Mickey does not exist as a real, tangible object. Furthering that line of thought, let's say that the aforementioned shirt is put on sale at Wal-Mart and bought by a Disney enthusiast. While the shirt is capital, and the ink which shows Mickey's face is capital, Mickey himself is not capital as Mickey is not on the shirt. Only his image is, as Mickey does not exist in the real world. Furthermore Despite having sold an image of Mickey, Disney retains intellectual property rights to him[3], they have therefore created capital without losing property. And since they have not traded off any property for their gained capital, intellectual property cannot be classified as capital. b. Music The gist of my prior point should be extended across here, as the same concept applies. Whether one pays to see a live concert, downloads a song from i-tunes, or goes to their local Hastings to buy a hard copy, the original distributor never loses the intellectual property rights to the music, just because they've sold a copy. This can be seen most clearly in the first two scenarios ( live music and iTunes download), so I'll expand on those for clarification. With the live music, you're paying your hard-earned capital to listen to intellectual property you never actually get to own. The artist and recording studio produce Capital from this venture, but the consumer only leaves with the memory. As with the download, you are paying for the music file but again you never own the song itself, nor do you own any physical capital. Plus the consumer is still bound by copyright laws as to how they may use that capital[4]. Unlike buying paint or lumber which can be used to make art or furniture to sell, the downloaded music has no re-sell value and thus is not capital despite being property. 2. Sufficiency- a. Currency is not a sufficient standard- The impact of my first argument can be extended here as a direct refutation to my opponent's conclusion concerning currency. I like the music argument so let's expand on that for a moment; let's say I decided to download Karmin's Album "Hello"[5]. By downloading the digital copy of this album I own the music, but do not have it available to me as capital as I cannot legally sell copies of the music. b. Advocacy- Con's argument only stands to explain currency, not to advocate a universal standard that proves that all Property is capital. My first argument should be extend through here as the warrants are applicable. Offering a term as the warrant to an argument is insufficient, as there is always a discrepancy between technical definition and practical application. Every Art exists on two levels; Theory and practice. My opponent however only offers the theory, with no pragmatic application. He give us an illustration using Yu-Gi-Oh cards, but as a whole we don't glean a criterion we can apply to all property to show it is capital. Furthermore, my opponent's Yu-Gi-Oh example is exactly the anecdotal fallacy I allude to in my framework arguments. With the understanding of Intellectual property being unable to be traded, we can easily understand how this example does not apply to all property. The impact is that my opponent's argument is unstable and circular. = Conclusion = I have shown multiple reasons to believe that not all property is capital. Each of these argument function together, as well as do they hold up as stand alone warrant for a Pro vote. Accordingly, if my opponent does not refute each argument sufficiently, then I urge that you vote for the Pro in this debate. I thank my opponent and hand this debate back over to them. I look forward to the following rounds. = Sources = [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] . http://corporate.disney.go.com... [4] . http://support.apple.com... [5] . http://itunes.apple.com...