Resoved: not all property is capital

= Burden of Proof = Since the resolution is “Resolved: Not all Property is Capital” Pro has the burden of proof to show that not all property is capital. It would be impractical to prove that “all property is capital”, as opposed to proving “not all property is capital” which is easier to prove. The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim of X, and it is a fallacy to claim that X is true unless you can prove that X is not true. In this case X is that not all capital is property. If the burden of proof was on Con, it would be an appeal to ignorance, because no matter how much proof Con provides, Pro could claim that there are types of property that he did not mention. On the other side of the coin, if the burden of proof was on Pro, Pro would simply need to point out one instance of property not being capital in order to meet the BOP. (1) = Criteria for capital = My opponent has accepted my definition of capital, but claims the definition is not criteria. (n) criterion (a reference point against which other things can be evaluated) (2) A definition can be a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; therefore a definition is a criterion. My opponent claims that intellectual property cannot be sold, but I already provided an example of intellectual property being bought and sold. = Intellectual Property = a. Art Pro is attempting to claim that Mickey Mouse does not exist, and to support this claim, he points to Scott McCloud, who said “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.” For example, say I want to portray justice as blind; I may depict lady justice with a blind fold on. Here is another example; the way the artist depicted Mickey Mouse has changed and evolved over time. That is not to say that Mickey Mouse has changed, but rather the way Mickey Mouse has been portrayed has changed. If someone was to use the original Mickey Mouse in a commercial without paying Disney for its usage, they would be stealing the same intellectual property as a more recent depiction of Mickey Mouse. Pro claims that Mickey Mouse is not capital, but rather the portrait of Mickey Mouse is Capital. This is false. Mickey Mouse is working Capital, and the depictions of Mickey Mouse are only possible because of the existence of Mickey Mouse. For example; Babe Ruth is Capital, and each time a photo is taken of Babe Ruth, the photo can be sold, or traded. Babe Ruth is working capital, and his image is financial capital. My opponent attempts to make the claim that financial capital only exists when upon a transaction. This is not true. If someone has a net worth of $1,000,000, they own an estimated net of $1,000,000 worth of capital. This includes financial capital, such as a car, or a boat. Net worth also takes into consideration working capital; such as patents, or shares in a company. Liabilities are also taken into consideration, such as debt, and maintenance fees. In other words, a Net worth is an estimate on one’s net capital, by determining the capital one owns compared to the capital one owes. Someone can also get an antique appraised, which would be impossible if the antique did not already have an existing worth. The worth of property is determined by the supply and demand of the item, regardless of whether that item is up for sale. When someone sells their property, or capital, the two people participating in the transaction can negotiate on a price either above, or below its real value. b. Music- Pro claims that music is not capital, but rather the right to the music is capital. This is false; the right to the music is a service, and therefore additional capital on top of the music. For example, say the demand for the song is a wheel of cheese; the person who made the cheese/song owns the whole wheel of cheese, and therefore has a natural right to the entire wheel of cheese. Now say the government gave 5 people the legal right to the wheel of cheese, even though they have no natural right to the cheese. The person who made the cheese now legally owns 1/5 of the cheese wheel, and 4 other people own the rest. Naturally the person owns the entire cheese wheel, and could sell or trade the cheese as he sees fit; however the government stepped in and divided up the legal right to sell the cheese wheel. Now if the guy who made the cheese wheel patent the cheese wheel, than he has a monopoly on the cheese wheel. The legal right is a guarantee by the government, to protect their right to sell the cheese wheel, and therefore is a government service. If that service did not exist than the cheese wheel would by default belong to its creator. Both the government service and the cheese wheel are assets; likewise both the patent and the art are assets. If legal rights did not exist, the song of the artist would still generate profit for the artist, but the artist would most likely only do live performances, as piracy would be rampant, and a waste of time. Pro also claims that piracy does not take money away from the artist, because the pirated copies are made from a seed copy instead of the original track. This is completely wrong. If you make a counterfeit CD, the official CDs are worth less, because the supply is increased without increasing the demand. The same logic applies to currency. If the demand/real national income is $1 trillion, and the government prints $1 trillion dollars of currency, than the supply and demand are at the equilibrium, and $1 is worth $1. If some counterfeiter prints $1 million in his basement, than puts that money into circulation, the supply has been increased without increasing the demand and the value of the dollar has been decreased. (3) 2. Sufficiency- a. Currency is not a sufficient standard- My opponent said my argument was too long, and that he didn’t read it. This is a rather weak argument to make. My opponent than claims that when someone purchases a CD, that the CD is not capital, or has no value. This is wrong; if the CD had no value, one could not resell the CD let alone purchase it to begin with. If someone purchases a digital download, they may place that download onto a flash drive, and resell it. b.Advocacy- Once again, when someone purchases the right to property, they are purchasing both the legal protection, and the intellectual property. If the government did not exist, the owner of intellectual property would be responsible for protecting his own property, and preventing others from stealing his intellectual property. Even without patents, one is able to make great profit from being the first to come up with an idea. Take for example the art work; an artist can create a masterpiece, and then present that masterpiece to the world; counterfeits can be made, but the original is worth far more money. Likewise a business can come up with an idea for a product, than establish a brand before other can reproduce the product; this makes the original producer’s product worth more, due to the popularity of the brand. Controlling who has the information to produce or replicate your product would be self-defense of one’s property. Adequate Coverage- Pro once again claims that I have the burden of proof, and then committed the argument from ignorance fallacy in order to prove his side. 1.http://www.qcc.cuny.edu... 2. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 3. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/12/38707619.pdf