That Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a justified theory of rights

I will go ahead and dive right into this. Hoppe, and my opponent, makes several logical errors in coming to this conclusion. First is an unsupported generalization. In part A ("Nothing can be justified if not through argumentation"), he says that by the fact that having an argument that not everything needs to be justified through argumentation, you are arguing and so proving yourself wrong. This is false because arguing that point is not everything, it is only one thing. Expanding a conclusion for one thing, to everything is a logical fallacy. We can see this is invalid by simply arguing about the laws of physics. "Gravity pulls mass towards mass. " To justify this, I do not need to argue, nor do anything. Such a statement is true and justified even if I never say a word. The same can be true of arguing with presuppositions. "You can read," does not need to be argued because the very fact that you read it so your brain could process it and then argue against it proves that you can read. Therefore, to justify "you can read," no argumentation needs to be done. These are just some examples where things can be justified without argumentation. Second, we have a non sequitur. Regarding presupposing "free in their actions," my opponent says that if you have a gun to your head, you cannot engage in argumentation. This doesn't make sense. Just because there is a gun to your head does not mean you are physically unable to think logically or reasonably, it simply means that you have a massive bias to say what the other person wants to hear. If we apply my opponent's logic, we would have to say that argumentation presupposes a lack of bias. We can see this to be false because someone can have a bias (like a nuclear engineer in need of work) yet still argue and justify the object that they are bias in favor of (the benefits of constructing of a nuclear power plant). The reason this is true is because you are always physically capable to overpowering any bias if you choose to (if a crazy guy points a gun at your head and says "do you still think I'm crazy? !" you can say "yes"). My opponent again commits a non sequitur in saying, "For one to argue against anyone's ability to use resources is again to engage in performative contradiction. For the act of claiming so is also an act of using a scarce resource (mouth, vocal cords, lungs)," when talking about property rights (private-ownership). My opponent equates "use" with "ownership," which is categorically false. I am currently using a computer, but that, in no way, shows that I am the owner of the computer. Simply because I use my vocal cords, my mouth, and my lungs to talk, does not mean I "own" those. Such an argument is naturally contradictory when applied to argumentation ethics, even if we assumed it to be correct. A dog is unable to engage in argumentation, and so, unable to justify its own self-ownership through the presuppositions of argumentation. But that dog does use its vocal cords and its body, and so one would have to argue that it owns itself (the same would apply to all living animals that use their own bodies). So the same belief system is saying that every animal both owns itself and does not own itself. This can be argued to be expanded to plants, as they are using their leaves (and so own their leaves), as well as their roots and all their other parts. I can then suppose that my opponent, unless a natural fruitavore (one who only eats fruits, after they have naturally fallen from the tree), has eaten either a plant or animal some time in his life, and so is in violation of his own beliefs (nothing wrong with being in violation of your own beliefs, it is possible). So far, it has been shown that it is possible for things to be justified without argumentation, and that use =/= ownership. While I would naturally argue for a state of non-ownership (but rather a right to use, rather than a right to own), that is not really relevant to this debate. For now, I will pass this back to my opponent, Thank you.