The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Intellectual property rights stifle innovation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
thefly50 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 189 times Debate No: 95183
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




"Intellectual property" is an umbrella term for things such as copyright (the right to monopoly on the publication of one's artistic works), patents (the right to monopoly on one's inventions), trademarks (the right to monopoly on one's products' identifying signs, designs and expressions), and more. They were introduced as legal concepts for the purpose of encouraging innovation. I'd like to argue that they have an inverse effect.

The debate's structure:
-Round 1: General information on the subject and introduction of each side's position.
-Rounds 2-4: Rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.
-Round 5: Rebuttals permitted, but conclusions are preferable.

I hope for an intelligent and productive debate.


WHAT UP BRO! You super duper disappointed? I be dang down and out cause of balls in turkey mustard.

World War III (WWIII or WW3) and Third World War are names given to a hypothetical third worldwide military conflict subsequent to World Wars I and II. The term has been in use since the end of World War II, and was also applied somewhat sarcastically, to describe broad conflicts indirectly involving many countries from different parts of the world, such as the Cold War or the War on Terror.

Because of the development and use of nuclear weapons near the end of World War II and their subsequent acquisition and deployment by many countries, the potential risk of a nuclear devastation of Earth's civilization and life is a common theme in speculations of a Third World War. Another major concern is that biological warfare could cause a very large number of casualties, either intentionally or inadvertently by an accidental release of a biological agent, the unexpected mutation of an agent, or its adaptation to other species after use. High-scale apocalyptic events like these, caused by advanced technology used for destruction, could potentially make Earth's surface uninhabitable, what prompts many to believe that after the war, humans would live either in underground facilities or in colonies in the space (like in the Moon or Mars or a space vehicle).

World War I (1914"1918) was regarded at the time as the "war to end all wars," as it was believed there could never again be another global conflict of such magnitude. World War II (1939"1945) proved that to be false, and with the advent of the Cold War in 1947 and the adoption of nuclear weapons, the possibility of a third global conflict became more plausible. The perceived threat then decreased with the end of the Cold War in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the United States as the sole global superpower. A Third World War was anticipated and planned for by military and civil authorities in many countries. Scenarios ranged from conventional warfare to limited or total nuclear warfare.

Military planners have been war gaming various scenarios, preparing for the worst, since the early days of the Cold War. Some of those plans are now out of date and have been partially or fully declassified.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was concerned that, with the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of WWII and the unreliability of the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, there was a serious threat to Western Europe. In April"May 1945, British Armed Forces developed Operation Unthinkable, thought to be the first scenario of the Third World War.[1] Its primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire".[2] The plan was rejected by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible.

"Operation Dropshot" was the 1950s United States contingency plan for a possible nuclear and conventional war with the Soviet Union in the Western European and Asian theaters.

At the time the US nuclear arsenal was limited in size, based mostly in the United States, and depended on bombers for delivery. Dropshot included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union's industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

The scenario was devised prior to the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It was also devised before Robert McNamara and President Kennedy changed the US Nuclear War plan from the 'city killing' countervalue strike plan to "counterforce" (targeted more at military forces). Nuclear weapons at this time were not accurate enough to hit a naval base without destroying the city adjacent to it, so the aim in using them was to destroy the enemy industrial capacity in an effort to cripple their war economy.

In January 1950, the North Atlantic Council approved NATO's military strategy of containment.[3] NATO military planning took on a renewed urgency following the outbreak of the Korean War in the early 1950s, prompting NATO to establish a "force under a centralised command, adequate to deter aggression and to ensure the defence of Western Europe". Allied Command Europe was established under General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, US Army, on 2 April 1951.[4][5] The Western Union Defence Organization had previously carried out Exercise Verity, a 1949 multilateral exercise involving naval air strikes and submarine attacks.

Exercise Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defence of Denmark and Norway from Russian attack in 1952. It was the first major NATO exercise. The exercise was jointly commanded by Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic Admiral Lynde D. McCormick, USN, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Matthew B. Ridgeway, US Army, during the Fall of 1952.

The US, UK, Canada, France, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Netherlands, and Belgium all participated.

Exercises Grand Slam and Longstep were naval exercises held in the Mediterranean Sea during 1952 to practice dislodging an enemy occupying force and amphibious assault. It involved over 170 warships and 700 aircraft under the overall command of Admiral Carney. The overall exercise commander, Admiral Carney summarized the accomplishments of Exercise Grand Slam by stating: "We have demonstrated that the senior commanders of all four powers can successfully take charge of a mixed task force and handle it effectively as a working unit."[citation needed]

The USSR called the exercises "war-like acts" by NATO, with particular reference to the participation of Norway and Denmark, and prepared for its own military maneuvers in the Soviet Zone.[6][7]

This was a major NATO naval exercise held in 1957, simulating a response to an all-out Soviet attack on NATO. The exercise involved over 200 warships, 650 aircraft, and 75,000 personnel from the United States Navy, the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy, the French Navy, the Royal Netherlands Navy, and the Royal Norwegian Navy. As the largest peacetime naval operation up to that time, Operation Strikeback was characterized by military analyst Hanson W. Baldwin of The New York Times as "constituting the strongest striking fleet assembled since World War II".[8]

Exercise Reforger (from return of forces to Germany) was an annual exercise conducted, during the Cold War, by NATO. The exercise was intended to ensure that NATO had the ability to quickly deploy forces to West Germany in the event of a conflict with the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO throughout the Cold War in conventional forces, especially armor. Therefore, in the event of a Soviet invasion, in order not to resort to tactical nuclear strikes, NATO forces holding the line against a Warsaw Pact armored spearhead would have to be quickly resupplied and replaced. Most of this support would have come across the Atlantic from the US and Canada.

Reforger was not merely a show of force"in the event of a conflict, it would be the actual plan to strengthen the NATO presence in Europe. In that instance, it would have been referred to as Operation Reforger. Important components in Reforger included the Military Airlift Command, the Military Sealift Command, and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

Seven Days to the River Rhine was a top secret military simulation exercise developed in 1979 by the Warsaw Pact. It started with the assumption that NATO would launch a nuclear attack on the Vistula river valley in a first-strike scenario, which would result in as many as two million Polish civilian casualties.[9] In response, a Soviet counter-strike would be carried out against West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark, with Warsaw Pact forces invading West Germany and aiming to stop at the River Rhine by the seventh day. Other USSR plans stopped only upon reaching the French border on day nine. Individual Warsaw Pact states were only assigned their own subpart of the strategic picture; in this case, the Polish forces were only expected to go as far as Germany. The Seven Days to the Rhine plan envisioned that Poland and Germany would be largely destroyed by nuclear exchanges, and that large numbers of troops would die of radiation sickness. It was estimated that NATO would fire nuclear weapons behind the advancing Soviet lines to cut off their supply lines and thus blunt their advance. While this plan assumed that NATO would use nuclear weapons to push back any Warsaw Pact invasion, it did not include nuclear strikes on France or the United Kingdom. Newspapers speculated when this plan was declassified, that France and the UK were not to be hit in an effort to get them to withhold use of their own nuclear weapons.

Exercise Able Archer was an annual exercise by the United States military in Europe that practiced command and control procedures, with emphasis on transition from solely conventional operations to chemical, nuclear, and conventional operations during a time of war. "Able Archer 83" was a five-day North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) command post exercise starting on 7 November 1983, that spanned Western Europe, centered on the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) Headquarters in Casteau, north of the city of Mons. Able Archer exercises simulated a period of conflict escalation, culminating in a coordinated nuclear attack

The realistic nature of the 1983 exercise, coupled with deteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and the anticipated arrival of strategic Pershing II nuclear missiles in Europe, led some members of the Soviet Politburo and military to believe that Able Archer 83 was a ruse of war, obscuring preparations for a genuine nuclear first strike.[10][11][12][13] In response, the Sov
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Hayd 1 month ago
interesting debate topic
Posted by Gangsta_Bob 1 month ago
I used to not be a troll.. I plan to phuk up debates until either I lose 100% faith in this site or someone fixes this stupid phuking glitch.
Posted by thefly50 1 month ago
How to forfeit the round? I'm new here.
Posted by Jackie_Hi 1 month ago
Definitely a troll.
Posted by thefly50 1 month ago
Judging by Con's other arguments here, I suppose he is what one would call a troll. Oh well.
Posted by thefly50 1 month ago
Ahem...excuse me? Your... argument, I suppose... doesn't seem to be related to the debate's topic. Perhaps Con wrote it in the wrong debate?
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.