intellectual property rights

A "Natural law" argument has its place. But if you wanted it to be a premise, it was on you to require it. You cannot simply assert it after the debate has started. "My opponent then makes an argument from ignorance:" I did not make an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is a specific "fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false". [1] Arguing that YOU are ignorant is, technically, an ad hominem, an argument "to the man". You have previously stated that you are "new to debating", and I having been trying to bear with you. My point was, however, that when you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of basic concepts like copyright, it makes it hard to have a rational debate with you. That didn't prove your point wrong, however, it was my citation that did. Your hypothetical made no sense, since it is impossible. It wasn't a plausible example used to illustrate your point, it was something you made up that has already been addressed by copyright law. I didn't address the question you NOW ask, "why can I not claim a pattern of a single word?", because you didn't ask it. However, to answer the question that you now ask, I respond that the fact that "a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright" addresses it neatly. It is the creativity which garners the copyright. "My opponent doesn't understand the concept of intellectual property, apparently, and decides to use a silly semantic argument." The difference between when I pointed out your ignorance and when you are, now, trying to point out what you perceive to be mine, is that I backed myself up with a source and made a point. You are making an ad hominem AND an assertion fallacy, in that you're asserting that I don't understand something, while never proving that I have said anything incorrect. You argue for the abolishment of all rights to IP. Trademark is IP. You have stated you recognize the validity of Trademarks at least in some circumstances. To break it down: P1: Trademarks are IP. P2: There are some circumstances where the protection of trademarks are valid. Conclusion: Therefore there are some circumstances where the protection of IP is valid. That is not a semantical argument. It is a logical one. It is, in part, why I asked in the comments initially how far you went with your argument. I asked: "Does your proposition include all trademark and patent law, as well?", you responded "yea... those are types of intellectual property, dude". You cannot back away from that now unless you also want to modify your proposition. "I am arguing that trademarks,"as justified by intellectual property law, are invalid." Trademarks are intellectual property, as you conceded. Any law to protect a trademark is by definition an intellectual property law. My opponent has failed to understand the burden of proof, and the nature of logical argument. But that doesn't necessarily affect his point. However, he has made no valid points that have not been already refuted, and has acknowledged at least once circumstance where there is validity to intellectual property law. This debate was predicated on the existence of intellectual property rights. My opponent has given no legitimate reason that those rights should be removed, no reason that intellectual property rights in the US should be abolished. Please vote Pro. [1] " http://en.wikipedia.org...