Resoved: not all property is capital

= Introduction = Great round so far, I'm having tons of fun with it and I look forward to the rest of the debate! I feel that a lot has been left out in my opponent's refutations, so in order to cover everything I see as necessary without cluttering the flow too much, I'll be going straight down my opponent's refutations and then cover the arguments I feel have been missed at the end. of this round. = Burden of Proof = In any debate the burden of proof is usually shared - however the instigator always has the primary responsibility to prove their point as they are the one who sets out to make that point in the first place. Therefore it doesn't matter who is pro and who is con, the person who instigates the round has the obligation to prove whatever claim they bring to the table. In the same way You don't invite a friend over for a meal expecting them to set the table, you don't start a debate expecting the other debater to hold the burden for themselves. Furthermore, the resolution is a statement of absolution for the con. What I mean is that they can only win if they prove that all property is indeed capital; I however don't have the inverse burden to prove that property is never capital, I just need to show that "not all property is capital. Either way, this isn't an abusive argument, so I ask that the voters decide for themselves where the burden rests. = Criteria for capital = There is one fundamental problem with this as a standard; that being that it isn't a standard, but a definition. My opponent outlines what capital is, and how it functions, but not what parameters must be met for something to be identified as capital. Beyond that this criteria is acceptable, as it stands as an excellent example to prove that not all property is capital. I still advocate that intellectual property is not capital as it doesn't ever trade off to become capital; but instead is a means to an end which creates capital completely separate from the intellectual property. I will cover more on this later, but I reiterate for emphasis; Intellectual property is a means to an end. = Intellectual Property = a. Art- I ask you as the voters to review my opponent's refutation here; he never covers my warrant, but instead rejects my argument without refuting clause that Mickey Mouse doesn't actually exist. Has he been drawn? Yeah. Animated? Yup. But does he exist? Oh no no no no no. Scott McCloud explains this best in his book Understanding Comics[6]. When you watch cartoons, read comics or even just look at a painting, you're not looking at what's being portrayed in each respective media; you're looking at an image of it. So in exactly the same way, you're aren't looking at Mickey when you watch a cartoon, read a comic or see a picture of him. You're looking at an image of him. Therefore since it isn't Mickey who creates capital, but his image; mickey isn't capital despite the fact that he is indeed property. Finally, do not be deceived by my opponent's definition arguments. If you explicitly read the first definitions my opponent offers in Round 2, you see that a trade-off has to happen in order for something to fulfill the criteria for capital (incidentally, this is still true even if you accept the half-fleshed criteria my opponent has already offered. [the prior paragraph stands to include the Happy Birthday argument presented in my opponent's previous " speech"] b. Music- My opponent has just opened up a whole new can of worms by mentioning property rights. There must first be a differentiation between property and property rights. My opponent's argument stands to advocate that property rights secure the profit produced from the intellectual property that is music, but not that the music itself is capital. Again, the music is a means to an end, not the end itself. Also let's talk about piracy for a moment; basically, it's irrelevant to this debate. Piracy is a touchy subject, and by making the following statements I in no way endorse it. But when you pirate music, you don't "steal" the copy of the music you're pirating, you make a copy of it from one or more "seed" copies. You acquire the intellectual property with no real loss the recording artist, and capital is taken entirely out of the equation. As for the CD argument, my opponent's is partially right. You can sell the original CD itself, but you can't burn a bunch of copies it and sell the copies. So again, the CD is just a means to the end, not the end itself. If you'd like to know of the subject further, I would suggest some reading on the Locke's social contract theory.[7] Locke is widely held as the most appropriate Social Contract author, as well as does he cover property rights throughout his text. 2. Sufficiency- a. Currency is not a sufficient standard- Two things here. First I'm thinking the argument's refutation has been grouped with 1b, so I'm just going to spare you reads the TL;DR, and extend those refutations here. Second, my opponent's refutation proves my point all the moreso; you don't have the rights to the song when you buy a copy of the music, you by a single song for person enjoyment. Barring any misinterpretations of the CD example, we see that this makes a digital download property without making it capital. b.Advocacy- There's a difference between Property, and Property rights. The "Happy Birthday" is a mute point. Again, there's a difference between property and property rights. Whether we're dealing with an artist's commission on a t-shirt, or an article; it isn't the intellectual property you're paying for, it's the rights to said property. Extend all the refutations in my prior sub-point, I've already covered this. = Underview/Conclusion = As for points I feel aren't getting enough coverage- 1. Currency- My opponent still doesn't separate currency from property. If you look at his initial illustration using the Yu-Gi-Oh cards, he never responds to the fact that Yu-Gi-Oh is fundamentally different from much property as it's been designed to be traded. Most other Property doesn't have such a strict stand of worth and value and accordingly cannot be fit into the realm of capital so narrowly. 2. Intellectual Property's Existence- Despite most of my prior "speech" being about this I'm not able to cover it as clearly as I would like, because my opponent doesn't every really attack my initial argument. Intellectual property doesn't exist, because it never really leaves person's mind. They can create replicas, images and media out of it - but the idea is securely stuck in their noggin. The implication of this is that any capital created as a product or by-product of intellectual property, is separate from intellectual property itself. Therefore we can see that Intellectual Property is not capital, but a means to create capital. 3. Adequate Coverage- Extending the Burden of proof argument down here alongside the comments I make in my conclusion, we see the my opponent doesn't do a very good job of showing that all property is capital; he only gives us a very simplified illustration of Yu-Gi-Oh cards. I'm not saying my opponent must explicitly cover all property, but for goodness sakes does need to show his theory in more than one way. There are other areas I'd like to cover, but I'm running out of room. Aside from that I don't want to over-saturate this debate with too much. So at this I'd like to hand the debate back over to opponents! = Sources = [6] http://www.bookrags.com... [7] http://plato.stanford.edu...