Property Rights Ought Not Exist in the United States

Let's start with the definition debate. He claims that the rights are only bound by legal principles, but the definition that HE provides stipulates that they can also be derived from "ethical theory." This is important because it DIRECTLY LINKS IN to the justification as to why you should support my definitions over his, namely that they are from A MORE CREDIBLE SOURCE: THE SECOND BEST UNIVERSITY IN THE NATION, while his are from some random website AND that philosophical definitions of rights are more credible than legal definitions because laws can be unjust (extend the Great Britain example here.) For example, the United States once deemed slavery to be a right of prosperous Caucasian southerners, but according to most philosophical theories, this was unjust. His only response to this is that my argument is "baseless", meaning that he had no valid rebuttal. This means that you can extend all of my analysis, including the part that claims that MY THEORY PRECLUDES HIS BECAUSE philosophy is more just than law and is the basis for all law. My opponent has also made an invalid assumption about my case; he seems to believe that I think that property rights are meaningless. THIS IS NOT TRUE. I am simply showing you that, ACCORDING TO PROPERTY RIGHTS THEORY, which U.S. citizens hold dear, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GRANT PROPERTY RIGHTS, meaning that they should not exist in the UNITED STATES. That takes care of his claim that I have contradicted myself. In addition, note that he is not even reading the logical structure of my case properly. Each of my contentions stands if the previous ones falls; this is indicated by the modifier "EVEN IF." That also takes care of "contradictions" because it indicates that those contentions ONLY MATTER IF THE PREVIOUS ONES FALL. His response to my first contention, that humans do not have the right to claim ownership of terrestrial resources because they did not create them and were not granted the right to use them has been reduced to "Definitions have already explained the valid concept of property rights." THIS ATTACK IS NON-RESPONSIVE. My argument is that ACCORDING TO PROPERTY RIGHTS THEORY, one can only claim ownership of an object if one created the object or was granted access to the object, either through gift or through sale, by the creator. Since none of these has happened for humans, according to property rights theory, humans should not be able to claim ownership over terrestrial objects. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST-IT ONLY MEANS THAT HUMANS SHOULD NOT HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. My second contention was that EVEN IF property rights are granted to humans, they are granted to the species as a whole and not to individuals, so the species should be sharing all resources equally; not dividing it into "plots" for individual use. His only response was "This contention is pointless because theft is only meaningful if property rights exist, and if they exist, I win." Again, this "rebuttal" is completely non-responsive; my argument is not that property rights do not exist, only that either humans should not have them or that property should be shared as a species. That means that individually, property rights should not exist in the United States. He then gives you some faulty analysis that proclaims that as long as someone believes they have a right to take the property of another person, then theft has not occurred. THIS CONTRADICTS THE NOTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, which stipulates that according to an objective standard, individuals ought to have a right to their own possessions. According to HIS ARGUMENT, PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE VOID BECAUSE ANYBODY could just claim that all of the property in the world is theirs, and there would be nobody to stop them since they would be correct. THIS MEANS THAT ACCORDING TO HIS OWN ANALYSIS THAT I BELIEVE THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE VOID, I SHOULD WIN THE ROUND. THIS ALSO CONTRADICTS all of HIS THEFT ANALYSIS. His only response to the third contention, which states that EVEN IF property rights do exist on an individual level, they SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THE U.S. because all of the land belongs to Native Americans. When I provided a map that proved that Native Americans spanned across the entirety of North America, he claimed that my proof was nonsensical. First, as the map shows, the colors are divided into different areas that belonged to different tribes WHICH ARE NAMED ON THE MAP. Second, this page also documents the verity of my contention. http://en.wikipedia.org... So, you should vote affirmative because I have proven that PROPERTY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THE U.S., while my opponent has not given you a meaningful response to my case.