intellectual property rights

"If those who wish to enact laws to restrict freedoms have no burden of proof, then all of the freedoms we possess, by default, should be illegal until defended to be otherwise." I am not the one who is proposing to limit freedoms. I am arguing that the freedoms currently in place are correct, and you are arguing that they are not. Currently, the "rights" of the bootleggers are limited, while the "rights" of the creators are protected. You wish to invert that; YOU are the one proposing a change, a claim that creators have no rights, and a limitation on the rights of creators to control their creation. As such, the burden of proof rests on YOU. You could argue that the burden of proof is EQUALLY SHARED, and perhaps make that a case I would have accepted, but to try to claim that it rests solely on me is to shift the terms of this debate AFTER ACCEPTANCE. And frankly, I wouldn't accept the equally shared term at this point either, since I am under no obligation to, and you have been disingenuous. "For the same reason that arguers for God's existence always carry full burden of proof, proponents of the legal restriction of natural freedom always carry full burden of proof. This is not a matter of "terms of debate," but rather a matter of the question being contended in the debate. " No. Again, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the burden of proof, and of the nature of rights in society. Rights are always a balance between separate parties' interests. You propose limiting rights, with an aim of expanding them in a different direction. As that is YOUR proposal, the burden is on you to establish why that should be. You are advocating the position that "intellectual property rights in the US should be abolished", the fact that you've set yourself up as "con" is immaterial to the point that you are actually arguing in FAVOR of the motion: "Intellectual property rights in the US should be abolished." You are advocating for the abolishment of a right. The fact that it would expand the "rights" of bootleggers is immaterial to the motion as presented. That is the term of the debate, and the burden is on you to establish why these rights which currently exist should be abolished. As it is both dishonest and incorrect, as previously stated I do not accept your demand. You have given multiple complaints about current IP laws, such as your perception of the arbitrariness of the rules. These are not reasons to abolish the system, necessarily, particularly as I have already noted that I am of the opinion the laws need to be changed. Your example: "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. You would not be able to get a copyright on the word "Warning"; the fact that you do not understand that shows that you do not understand the issue as well as you think you do. This is not really the place for an overview of copyright. You should have this basic knowledge before proposing it be abolished. However: "Typically, a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright...it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work. However, single words or a short string of words can sometimes be registered as a trademark instead. Copyright law recognises the right of an author based on whether the work actually is an original creation, rather than based on whether it is unique; two authors may own copyright on two substantially identical works, if it is determined that the duplication was coincidental, and neither was copied from the other." [1] My opponent failed to address the fact, in his scarcity argument, that IP Laws are laws of commerce. To repeat: The money involved in the sale of IP may be argued to be the scarce item. Or the creativity involved may be the "scarce item". Trademarks are IP. By conceding that there are valid reasons for trademarks, my opponent concedes the point of the debate. The motion "intellectual property rights in the US should be abolished" has not met its burden of proof, and therefore the resolution is not affirmed. [1] --http://en.wikipedia.org...