Resoved: not all property is capital

I've had a lot of fun, as I hope he has as well. Since this is the last round, I won't spend as much time on the line-by-line since my opponent won't get a chance to respond. Instead I'm just going to run down the flow, make my final comments/refutations/etc. and then offer up a few voters at the end. = Burden of Proof = First, let me clarify that I am not the one who made the claim of X, whereas X states that all property is capital. I did not instigate this debate. My opponent made the claim of X as he raised the issue concerning property as capital in the first place. At the moment he took a stance on an issue he raised, he makes a claim which he has the burden to fulfill. Furthermore, I ask you; what would my opponent be advocating if he didn't claim that all property is capital? Even if I had instigated this debate, and my opponent came in to oppose me, by default he would have to advocate that all property is capital in order to refute my arguments. The burden of proof is shared, as I have already stated, however my opponent has the main burden as this debate's instigator. = Criteria for Capital = Sadly it appears that this point has become a definition debate. Definitions are inadequate as a standard of reference for anything, because definitions can often miss the point entirely. [8] "No definition, particularly a brief one, is likely to satisfy everyone because definitions tend to weaken and require qualification when confronted by the uniqueness of individual works. George Cuvier, a French naturalist defines a whale in his nineteenth-century study The Animal Kingdom [as being] a mammiferous Animal without hind feet. Curvier's description is technically correct, however there is little wisdom in it. " The same principle is applicable here, while my opponent's definitions are wholesome, they don't provide a standard of weight any more than a definition of math would provide a formula for solving an equation. = Intellectual Property = a. art- Most of the argument my opponent has made in the prior "speech" are just a rehashing of my own arguments. therefore for clarity's sake I'm only going to cover the new arguments made. I will also be grouping various points for the clarity and understanding of the voters. Working Capital- My opponent never mentions working capital before this point in the debate. Not only does that make it a new argument, which is generally frowned upon following a constructive argument, but it also stands to count this as as a drop for my opponent's prior line of argumentation. Working capital is fundamentally different from regular capital, as working capital doesn't require a trade-off and it's intent isn't always to create profit. This claim isn't even linear to my opponent's initial argument (see Yu-Gi-Oh cards in round 2). With working capital you don't trade anything, but instead you produce profit without a trade-off being necessary. This fundamentally separates it from regular capital, necessitating a separate term for it in the first place. For Sale- A person's net worth has nothing to do with determining whether or not all property is capital. In fact this is a circular argument, as it's workability is based in an assumption that all property is capital. Also, cross-apply the argument concerning Property versus property rights (I'll cover this fully in the next argument). Mickey Mouse only ever truly existed in the mind of Walt Disney. He drew him, animated him, and built a multimillion dollar industry with his help; however when he died Mickey went with him. His image continues to generate profit for the Disney corporation, but he in effect no longer exists because he is not, nor was he ever, a physical manifestation outside the mind of Walt Disney. When you look at the pictures of Mickey hyper-linked by my opponent in the prior round, you don't see Mickey but a drawing of Mickey[6]. b. Music- Right to music- I think my opponent missed my point here concerning the distinction between property and property rights. Basically (this is for the voters' sake), Property is what you own be it intellectual or other. Property rights are the legislation which protect the aformentioned property. My opponent ignores the mention of Locke's Social contract here. My opponent makes this argument from the viewpoint of industrialized music, not music in it's entirety. Piracy- My argument never intended to advocate piracy, I make that rather explicit. Instead this argument serves as an illustration of how a music download is not capital despite being intellectual property. Plus piracy doesn't take money away from artists, it just prevents them from making more (though even that has been the subject of much controversy[9]. *cough The Avengers cough*. ) Beyond that, my opponent completely drops my argument about reselling a download. Basically if I where to download Karmin's new album Hello[5], I couldn't profit from that download despite owning that data. 2. Sufficiency- a. Currency is not a sufficient Standard- I didn't say my opponent's argument was too long and I didn't read it, I said the content was largely the same so I would simply extend those arguments over to 2a and "spare the voters the TL;DR. " Also extend 1b down here. With the CD example, the disc itself has value but not the music on it. With the Flash Drive example, what happened to my opponent's stark opposition to piracy in the previous "speech"? Anyway you're selling the flash drive not the data on it. b. Advocacy Extend the refutation seperating property from property rights. They aren't the same thing, and the government as an agent of protection as nothing to do with the property's classification as Capital. Adequate Coverage- My opponent just called me ignorant. I think that's adequate ground to warrant a loss in conduct. Beyond that, it is not ignorance on my part when the burden of proof is left open to interpretation and I happen to offer framework for it my opponent disagrees with. = Voters/Conclusions/Final Statements = I'll be as concise as possible here. There plenty of reasons to vote Pro, but I'm going to focus on four. 1. Piracy and digital music- If the only copy of digital music I have is one that I have downloaded from iTunes, or some other online music store, then that property is not capital as do not have the rights to resell it. Go and read the iTunes user end agreement contract[10]. You'll see that it is a violation of their terms use to resell that content. Impact- No matter who you vote for on the burden of proof argument, this alone fulfills the burden of all property not being capital. 2. Mickey Mouse- I bought my mom a coffee mug with Mickey Mouse on it when I was in Austin. That must mean she owns Mickey Mouse right? Nope, she owns a coffee mug. Despite Mickey Mouse adorning the mug, Disney has in no way lost Mickey. Impact- While the mug itself is capital, Mickey isn't. Disney hasn't lost ownership of him, or their property rights concerning him; they have however gained profit from my buying that mug. 3. Pro Flow- All the arguments from my "speech" in round two onwards are on the Pro's flow. My opponent hasn't even extended his original arguments throughout this round. Impact- Since there are only pro arguments on the flow, I only need to win one of them to win the round. There aren't even any Con arguments to consider. 4. Currency- My opponent's initial argument doesn't even advocate that all property is capital; it advocates that Yu-Gi-Oh cards can serve as a system of currency. Thanks guys! = Sources = [8] . http://www.bedfordstmartins.com... [9] . http://www.techspot.com... [10] . http://www.apple.com... [x] . http://www.econlib.org...