Property Rights Ought Not Exist in the United States

My opponent’s arguments though well written, tend to be self contradictory. It seems that he is under the impression that his definition either contradicts the definition provided by me simply because it comes from a different source. As I have already stated, both definitions are equivalent and his posting of a differently worded definition is redundant. It is obvious that legal systems are based on ethical and philosophical theories and hence it is pointless for him to state that -rights can also be derived from ethical theory. My opponent also makes a false statement-He claims that the rights are only bound by legal principles.I would like to point out that my post of rights does not make any such claim. I have already pointed out that the U.S. can grant themselves property rights without contradicting themselves. It would be to my advantage to make the obvious moral arguments in favour of property rights(with regard to stability of society and prevention of unnecessary chaos) but I have refrained from doing so because justice, ultimately boils down to definitions of right and wrong, one may state them but there is no real way to argue over them. His Native American point is irrelevant to this debate because it comes into force only when property rights exist; at that point my opponent has already lost his case. Needless to say, his arguments do not point out any self contradiction of the American property rights theory. In the words of Oliver Goldsmith- In arguing too, the person own'd his skill, For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still; He believes that property rights only allow for claim of ownership via sale or as a gift. Property rights theories do allow for ownership through other means including pedis possession. http://en.wikipedia.org... Further explanation: http://www.invispress.com... As we can see from the geomet case, the case went in favour of the new occupant because of better utilization of land. Furthermore in my analysis of theft (case of person A vs. person B), I clearly pointed out that theft has not occurred according to theory of person A but it may have occurred according to theory of person B. I place importance in talking with context to a theory ,something which my opponent has sought to avoid. His last argument in favour of his multi couloured map is that it has names on it. Again, this is not proof. He needed to prove that Native Americans occupied the entirety of US beyond all reasonable doubt. I have read through his link on Wikipedia, and while it does raise points of mistreatment of native Americans (according to certain theories) it does not prove that native Americans occupied the entirety of U.S. You may read through it too. At any rate, this entire point is irrelevant to the entire debate because it comes into force only into existence of property rights. I have already pointed out that both Native Americans and the citizens of U.S.(which may include native Americans) in general would find property rights desirable. This gains special relevance because they have a major say in this matter. Lastly I leave with a post from the link which my opponent has provided: General Ely S. Parker, a member of the Seneca tribe, created the articles of surrender which General Robert E. Lee signed at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. Gen. Parker, who served as Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's military secretary and was a trained attorney, was once rejected for Union military service because of his race. At Appomattox, Lee is said to have remarked to Parker, "I am glad to see one real American here," to which Parker replied, "We are all Americans." In conclusion, you should vote con. I hope you have found my arguments to be coherent and well written. Suggestions are welcome. I hope you have found this debate interesting. I thank IDDEBATER540 for a good debate and hope that we have more.