Intellectual Property should not be monopolized

It has been all I could do to post my arguments on time, as college has just begun and hence has kept me very busy. My closing argument(s) will be brief, because I do not think it will require much character usage to show that I as “the negation” should win this debate. R1: My opponent has certain responsibilities (as the affirmative) that he has not fulfilled. My opponent started this debate. He is the one who wants to enact a policy that would change the status quo. As such, it is his responsibility to show tangible harms that cannot or should not be tolerated (hence the need for change). He has not done that. My job, as the negation, is to show the harms of enacting his policy, which I have done in the previous round. I showed that authors could potentially be harmed by enacting his ambiguous policy. We do not even know what the purpose of his policy is. He says: “…if someone wanted to open their own restaurant, that they shouldn't be able to call it "Burger King", just because said a large company said, no that's their name. ” My opponent doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of trademarks or copyrights, or patents on inventions. They are preventative measures meant to ensure that inventors and/or entrepreneurs still have an incentive to innovate. If Burger King’s owner or culinary development team didn’t have exclusive rights to “the Whopper” what would stop somebody from visiting a Burger King franchise, ordering a whopper and deciding that they wanted to capitalize on the “Whopper name”? The harm in that instance is clear and it applies to every single argument my opponent presented. If a creator of any kind does not feel that their product is protected, where is the incentive to innovate if someone could just swipe the proverbial rug from under their feet within a matter of moments? R2: Under the “status quo” we have protections for creators, which is all I have to defend. Last round, I showed with just a limited group of creative professionals (authors) how important it is to protect the rights of creative minds, and how harmful and disparaging it can be when those creative protections are infringed upon. What reason is there to take the risk in affirming my opponent’s resolution, in which he gives us no clear idea of what he actually wants to enact? I am still not sure of the complete ramifications of his bill, because he’s failed to show what he actually wants. It is not the fault of the negation that my opponent had to spend half of his second constructive attempting to explicate his personal opinions. He has no case examples of when or how the current copyright laws have harmed any actual businesses or creators. I, on the other hand have shown you (using just authors, because the same harms can basically be extrapolated to other creative professions) concrete examples of the positive impacts of the current legislation. The lesson of today’s debate is do not bother to affirm a bill when its creators don’t give you ample reasons to do so. Since we have no idea the ramifications of the bill my opponent is proposing the logical mind, must stand with me in negating this shoddy bill. Thank you.