intellectual property rights

I am arguing for a freer freedom than my opponent's. The opponent carries the full burden of proof for the same reason that anyone who wishes to restrict natural freedom carries the burden of proof. Rights are normative; they are relative to a standard of freedom only bound by what is out of our reach (i. e. , natural forces. ) Now imagine if our society, as it is, became lawless (without any government-mandated restrictions on natural freedom. ) Those who propose laws that restrict the freedom (even laws as simple as those against murder, which would likely get quick support) have full burden of proof. No one will assume, by default, that the right to brush your teeth is equally legal and illegal; that would make no sense, because an act can either be legal or illegal. If you brush your teeth and there is no law that calls for a punitive response, then it is LEGAL and you have the RIGHT TO DO IT, even though it has not yet been addressed by the law. And even if brushing your teeth were illegal now, the burden of proof is on the proponents of its prohibition (e. g. , government officials); its current legality is irrelevant to the issue of which side carries the burden of proof. My opponent makes this claim: "Currently, the "rights" of the bootleggers are limited, while the "rights" of the creators are protected. " If there were no law against it, the right to bootleg would be unlimited; if there were no law, the right to "intellectual property" would not exist. The former is a law that enforces natural freedom, and the latter is not intertwined with natural freedoms at all. (By "natural freedoms," I mean the freedoms that one experiences simply through existing, without the law. ) ---My opponent then makes an argument from ignorance:"If I sold signs that said "Warning" on them and were hypothetically able to copyright 'Warning,' then no one would be able to sell literature or products with that word" Shows a complete lack of understanding of how copyright works. "This is a hypothetical (hence why I wrote "hypothetically"), since it is meant to display the absurdity of claiming rights to words, in the case of copyright. If I can claim a right to a pattern of 50 words, why can I not claim a pattern of a single word? Rather than answer this fundamental question, the opponent simply assumes that I lack knowledge about the subject matter. ---"Trademarks are IP. By conceding that there are valid reasons for trademarks, my opponent concedes the point of the debate. "My opponent doesn't understand the concept of intellectual property, apparently, and decides to use a silly semantic argument. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights. I am arguing that trademarks, as justified by intellectual property law, are invalid. However, consumers should be able to differentiate between different companies; this is NOT AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT of the company, but rather a right to the consumer to determine which services/goods are being provided to him/her. Name differentiation among companies, used solely for the purpose of consumer rights, does not inherently give companies the "right" to the names. ---I remind my opponent not to make any new arguments in the last round, since there is no way I could refute them. My opponent failed to understand why he carried full burden of proof (solely due to the nature of the debate resolution), my opponent failed to meet his burden of proof, and—even if the burden of proof were somehow shared—he did not win the debate. Also, note that many points were completely dropped. Thank you.