It is economically illogical to pay for digital content.

I must admit that I am dissappointed by my opponent's Laconic response. I shall nonetheless proceed with the debate, in the hope that Con may yet make a case, or, failing that, provide a compelling rebuttal. ---Before I can rebut my opponent's argument, I fear I must first decode it. Let us begin with the claim that "Some rich people pay good [sic] for those stuff." I must assume that the stuff in question is the digital content, and since my opponent did not dispute my definition, or providan alternate, he agrees with it. So far so good.My opponent's claim seems to be that consumers with sufficiently high incomes are willing to overlook the logical contadiction which I claimed is found in the sale of digital content and still pay money, even though they could theoretically not do so. Ideally, evidence should have been provided for this behavior, but since I said in the conditions that this is a theoretical debate, I am willing to let that slide. The other sentence of my opponent's argument essentially repeats this point about the willingness of wealthy consumers to pay for digital content. (More astute observers may take the use of the word "pricey" in that context as a tacit admission that the price is higher that what it should logically be, but that's nitpicking.)Even if we were to grant that my opponent's claim is true despite the lack of evidence (which I have done already), his argument still does him no good. What my opponent describes is the Demand for digital content. Demand alone does not a price make. To put it more mathematically, economists use a simple diagram with price on the Y-axis and quantity on the X-axis. There are usually two curves -- one sloped downward, describing Demand, and one upward-sloping, describing Supply. (The resons for their shapes are not relevant to this debate.) The point where the two intersect gives us the equilibrium quantity and price determined by the market. However, what happens in the special case that I described in the previous round (i.e. when a good is not scarce), is that the two curves are unable to intersect above the X-axis in order to form a non-zero price. This is entirely a consquence of the Supply curve being too far away. The demand for the good does not play a part here.So far, Con has not discussed the supply side of digital content. Unless he is able to show that the supply of digital media is able to interact with the demand (i.e. that it is finite), his discussion of demand serves no purpose. More importantly, I would like to draw everyone's attenttion to the fact that Con has not made any argument with regards to resource allocation or efficiency. That is to say, he offers no argument why paid digital content makes economic sense. The whole purpose of Economics is to answer the question: Given limited resources, what, how, how much, and for whom must be produced so that society as a whole derives the most benefit? Con lacks any argument in this area, which leads me to believe he has a very sketchy understanding of what Economics actually is. I feel this is as much as I am able to go on given such a limited response. Were my opponent to actually furnish an argument in this round, I would gladly rebut it. I extent all my initial arguments. I will refrain addind new ones, eventhough this is my last opportunity to do so, as I think they would serve me no purpose by this point.