The Instigator
DanT
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
buckIPDA
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Resoved: not all property is capital

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
buckIPDA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,584 times Debate No: 23733
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (6)

 

DanT

Con



1st round acceptance only
buckIPDA

Pro

Interesting topic. I'm looking forward to seeing where this debate leads.
Thanks to my opponent for instigation, and I wholeheartedly look forward to this round.
Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Con

According to the IRS “Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure or investment is a capital asset”, and “Capital assets include a home, household furnishings and stocks and bonds held in a personal account.” (1) Land is capital, a house is capital, a car is capital, a couch is capital, a bed is capital, a computer is capital, a blender is capital, a TV is capital; it’s all capital. Investorwords.com defines capital as “The money, property, and other valuables which collectively represent the wealth of an individual or business.” (2) In other words, if you own 1,000 books, each one of those books is capital, and can be considered material wealth. Since one is capable of selling their book for money, or trading it for some other product of equal value, the books are considered capital, because the books have a value. If someone collects trading cards, their trading cards are also capital with the rarer cards being of greater value, due to the greater demand and lower supply. One could trade a single rare card for 10 common cards, which is no different than exchanging a dollar for 10 dimes.


Currency is simply the representation of material capital, to replace bartering with a system of standardized trade. All property has a value, and so all property capital. If it can be bought or sold, or used to generate revenue, than it is capital. Humans are capital because our skills help to generate revenue; a book is capital because it can be sold or rented. A horse is capital because it can be used for transportational services, in order to generate a profit. A dog can be capital because it can be used for hunting, and may be bought and sold as pets. So long as it has a value, or a usage it can be considered capital.



Sources:

1. http://www.irs.gov...
2. http://www.investorwords.com...
buckIPDA

Pro

= Introduction=
I thank my opponent greatly for instigating such a debate. The question of what is and what is not capital is one very much so pertinent to American society, especially considering our country's conformity to capitalist principles. This system of buying and selling is an integral part of our society without which we would be unable to maintain commerce.

However, right along side this wonderful system comes the danger in that we believe anything and everything that is owned is for sale. Furthermore we falsely believe that it is even possible to sell all the property we possess.

Because of I adamantly believe that this mindset is detrimental to capitalism, and that it is a false sentiment based in a limit perspective - I hereby affirm that "Not all property is Capital".

= Definitions =
For the sake of clarity, Property[1] will be understood as "something that is owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by someone"

Intellectual Property[2] will be understood as "intangible property that is the result of creativity (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights)"

I see these as acceptable definitions to accompany the one offered by my opponent. If there is any objection to these terms, my opponent may protest them so long as he can offer adequate warrant.

= Framework =
It should be noted that by phrasing the resolution in the manner my opponent has chosen, he has prescribed himself the burden to prove that all property is capital. This means that if I can show even one type of property that is not capital, that any type of property is unable to be capital, or that my opponent has done an unsatisfactory job in proving their stance I will win this debate.

Relying solely on simplified illustrations to prove one's point is unsatisfactory, as it narrows the scope of the debate for the voters, and ultimately defeats the educational quality of debate. Therefore in order to assert that all property is capital, my opponent should set a criterion that property must fulfill in order to be capital. This removes a huge level of anecdotal fallacy, as well as does it establish an objective standard by which the voters can weight the debate.

= Arguments =
1. Intellectual Property-
a. Art
The first argument of the Pro is that Intellectual Property does not constitute capital, as it only truly exists in a person's mind. A perfect example of this would be a drawing of Mickey Mouse; where a Disney cartoonist to draw Mickey to be put on T-Shirt, then Mickey's image would adorn the shirt, but he himself would not. It would be only his image, as Mickey does not exist as a real, tangible object.
Furthering that line of thought, let's say that the aforementioned shirt is put on sale at Wal-Mart and bought by a Disney enthusiast. While the shirt is capital, and the ink which shows Mickey's face is capital, Mickey himself is not capital as Mickey is not on the shirt. Only his image is, as Mickey does not exist in the real world. Furthermore Despite having sold an image of Mickey, Disney retains intellectual property rights to him[3], they have therefore created capital without losing property. And since they have not traded off any property for their gained capital, intellectual property cannot be classified as capital.

b. Music
The gist of my prior point should be extended across here, as the same concept applies. Whether one pays to see a live concert, downloads a song from i-tunes, or goes to their local Hastings to buy a hard copy, the original distributor never loses the intellectual property rights to the music, just because they've sold a copy. This can be seen most clearly in the first two scenarios ( live music and iTunes download), so I'll expand on those for clarification.
With the live music, you're paying your hard-earned capital to listen to intellectual property you never actually get to own. The artist and recording studio produce Capital from this venture, but the consumer only leaves with the memory. As with the download, you are paying for the music file but again you never own the song itself, nor do you own any physical capital. Plus the consumer is still bound by copyright laws as to how they may use that capital[4]. Unlike buying paint or lumber which can be used to make art or furniture to sell, the downloaded music has no re-sell value and thus is not capital despite being property.

2. Sufficiency-
a. Currency is not a sufficient standard-
The impact of my first argument can be extended here as a direct refutation to my opponent's conclusion concerning currency. I like the music argument so let's expand on that for a moment; let's say I decided to download Karmin's Album "Hello"[5]. By downloading the digital copy of this album I own the music, but do not have it available to me as capital as I cannot legally sell copies of the music.

b. Advocacy-
Con's argument only stands to explain currency, not to advocate a universal standard that proves that all Property is capital. My first argument should be extend through here as the warrants are applicable.
Offering a term as the warrant to an argument is insufficient, as there is always a discrepancy between technical definition and practical application. Every Art exists on two levels; Theory and practice. My opponent however only offers the theory, with no pragmatic application. He give us an illustration using Yu-Gi-Oh cards, but as a whole we don't glean a criterion we can apply to all property to show it is capital.
Furthermore, my opponent's Yu-Gi-Oh example is exactly the anecdotal fallacy I allude to in my framework arguments. With the understanding of Intellectual property being unable to be traded, we can easily understand how this example does not apply to all property. The impact is that my opponent's argument is unstable and circular.

= Conclusion =
I have shown multiple reasons to believe that not all property is capital. Each of these argument function together, as well as do they hold up as stand alone warrant for a Pro vote. Accordingly, if my opponent does not refute each argument sufficiently, then I urge that you vote for the Pro in this debate.

I thank my opponent and hand this debate back over to them. I look forward to the following rounds.

= Sources =
[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[3] http://corporate.disney.go.com...
[4] http://support.apple.com...
[5] http://itunes.apple.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Con

= Framework =



  1. Burden of proof


Contrary to what my opponent has claimed, I do not hold the burden of proof. The resolution is “not all property is capital”, meaning pro is making the claim.



  1. Criteria for capital


As stated before, capital is anything that can be considered a form of wealth, or be used to obtain wealth.


There are two ways in which something can be considered capital; if it is financial capital, or if it is working capital.


(n) capital (wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business and human resources of economic value)


(n) working capital (assets available for use in the production of further assets)


(1)


= Arguments =



  1. Intellectual Property-


a. Art


Art is capital, and the Mickey Mouse cartoon is capital. Mickey Mouse can be used to generate revenue. The character can be used to sell a product, such as a T-shirt, or bubble gum. The character can be used to sell the Disney brand, and therefore is an asset of Disney, used to generate a profit. Intellectual property is protected by copyright laws, because it can be used to generate a profit. The reason why someone spends money to patent their intellectual property, is because intellectual property, and patents are both capital; intellectual property can be used to generate a profit, and patents can be used so that others cannot compete using your idea, without paying you a fee.


Music is art. Take for example the song “Happy Birthday to you” which was believed in the 80’s to generate an annual-revenue of $1 million, from royalties. If a movie or TV uses the Birthday song, they must pay Warner Communications, who purchased the rights to the song from the Birch Tree Group in 1988. (2)




b. Music


Until someone sells the rights to their music they will continue generating a profit from the song; this makes the rights to the song an asset, and therefore capital. Because one generates a profit from the song, the song is capital. If someone sells the rights to the song they also make a profit, therefore the rights are also capital.


People pay money in order to have a right to a copy of the song, but not to use the song as their own. If someone pirates a song, they are stealing capital from the artist, because they stealing a copy of the song without payment. The song is an asset to the artist. If someone purchases the right to a copy of the artist’s song, such as a CD, they could then resell that right/CD to someone else, if they no longer wish to listen to the song. This makes each copy of the song a form of capital.



2. Sufficiency-


a. Currency is not a sufficient standard-


Pro claims because he cannot copy and resell a CD he has purchased, he did not purchase capital. As I have already pointed out, when purchasing a CD one is not purchasing the rights to copy and distribute the song, but rather the rights to a single copy of the song, for one’s enjoyment. If one no longer wishes to listen to the song, they may simply resell the CD, or right to the copy. Illegal downloads are theft of capital, because one is illegally obtaining a copy without compensation.


b. Advocacy


My opponent claims that not all property can be traded; however an artist can sell the rights to his artwork. As I already mentioned, the rights to the song “Happy Birthday to you” has switched hands, from the Birch Tree Group to Warner Communications; if intellectual property could not be traded, than this would be impossible.


Again Capital is not just something which can be bought or sold; it is also something which can be used to generate a profit. Take for example Spreadshirt GmbH; if someone uploads a design they created onto their website and other people create a shirt with that design, than the artist who created the design gains a commission. The design helps the artist gain a profit, and thus is capital. (3) If someone writes and article, than sells it on a constant-content.com, they could sell full rights to the article, unique rights, or simply usage rights. If someone purchases usage rights, they may only use a copy of the article once, and cannot resell the article. If they purchase unique rights they may use the article, and no one else would be able to purchase and the article again, but the customer may not resell the article. If someone buys full rights to the article, than not only do they have sole rights to use the unique article, but they may also resell the article. (4) Full rights are worth more than unique rights, and unique rights are worth more than usage rights. Each right is a form of capital, and is intellectual property.


1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...


2. http://www.ibiblio.org...


3. http://www.spreadshirt.com...


4. https://www.constant-content.com...

buckIPDA

Pro

= Introduction =
Great round so far, I'm having tons of fun with it and I look forward to the rest of the debate!

I feel that a lot has been left out in my opponent's refutations, so in order to cover everything I see as necessary without cluttering the flow too much, I'll be going straight down my opponent's refutations and then cover the arguments I feel have been missed at the end. of this round.

= Burden of Proof =
In any debate the burden of proof is usually shared - however the instigator always has the primary responsibility to prove their point as they are the one who sets out to make that point in the first place. Therefore it doesn't matter who is pro and who is con, the person who instigates the round has the obligation to prove whatever claim they bring to the table. In the same way You don't invite a friend over for a meal expecting them to set the table, you don't start a debate expecting the other debater to hold the burden for themselves.

Furthermore, the resolution is a statement of absolution for the con. What I mean is that they can only win if they prove that all property is indeed capital; I however don't have the inverse burden to prove that property is never capital, I just need to show that "not all property is capital. Either way, this isn't an abusive argument, so I ask that the voters decide for themselves where the burden rests.

= Criteria for capital =

There is one fundamental problem with this as a standard; that being that it isn't a standard, but a definition. My opponent outlines what capital is, and how it functions, but not what parameters must be met for something to be identified as capital.
Beyond that this criteria is acceptable, as it stands as an excellent example to prove that not all property is capital. I still advocate that intellectual property is not capital as it doesn't ever trade off to become capital; but instead is a means to an end which creates capital completely separate from the intellectual property. I will cover more on this later, but I reiterate for emphasis; Intellectual property is a means to an end.

= Intellectual Property =
a. Art-
I ask you as the voters to review my opponent's refutation here; he never covers my warrant, but instead rejects my argument without refuting clause that Mickey Mouse doesn't actually exist. Has he been drawn? Yeah. Animated? Yup. But does he exist? Oh no no no no no.

Scott McCloud explains this best in his book Understanding Comics[6]. 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.

So in exactly the same way, you're aren't looking at Mickey when you watch a cartoon, read a comic or see a picture of him. You're looking at an image of him. Therefore since it isn't Mickey who creates capital, but his image; mickey isn't capital despite the fact that he is indeed property.

Finally, do not be deceived by my opponent's definition arguments. If you explicitly read the first definitions my opponent offers in Round 2, you see that a trade-off has to happen in order for something to fulfill the criteria for capital (incidentally, this is still true even if you accept the half-fleshed criteria my opponent has already offered.

[the prior paragraph stands to include the Happy Birthday argument presented in my opponent's previous "
speech"]

b. Music-

My opponent has just opened up a whole new can of worms by mentioning property rights. There must first be a differentiation between property and property rights. My opponent's argument stands to advocate that property rights secure the profit produced from the intellectual property that is music, but not that the music itself is capital. Again, the music is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Also let's talk about piracy for a moment; basically, it's irrelevant to this debate. Piracy is a touchy subject, and by making the following statements I in no way endorse it. But when you pirate music, you don't "steal" the copy of the music you're pirating, you make a copy of it from one or more "seed" copies. You acquire the intellectual property with no real loss the recording artist, and capital is taken entirely out of the equation.
As for the CD argument, my opponent's is partially right. You can sell the original CD itself, but you can't burn a bunch of copies it and sell the copies. So again, the CD is just a means to the end, not the end itself.

If you'd like to know of the subject further, I would suggest some reading on the Locke's social contract theory.[7] Locke is widely held as the most appropriate Social Contract author, as well as does he cover property rights throughout his text.

2. Sufficiency-
a. Currency is not a sufficient standard-
Two things here. First I'm thinking the argument's refutation has been grouped with 1b, so I'm just going to spare you reads the TL;DR, and extend those refutations here. Second, my opponent's refutation proves my point all the moreso; you don't have the rights to the song when you buy a copy of the music, you by a single song for person enjoyment. Barring any misinterpretations of the CD example, we see that this makes a digital download property without making it capital.

b.Advocacy-
There's a difference between Property, and Property rights. The "Happy Birthday" is a mute point.

Again, there's a difference between property and property rights. Whether we're dealing with an artist's commission on a t-shirt, or an article; it isn't the intellectual property you're paying for, it's the rights to said property. Extend all the refutations in my prior sub-point, I've already covered this.

= Underview/Conclusion =
As for points I feel aren't getting enough coverage-
1. Currency-

My opponent still doesn't separate currency from property. If you look at his initial illustration using the Yu-Gi-Oh cards, he never responds to the fact that Yu-Gi-Oh is fundamentally different from much property as it's been designed to be traded. Most other Property doesn't have such a strict stand of worth and value and accordingly cannot be fit into the realm of capital so narrowly.

2. Intellectual Property's Existence-

Despite most of my prior "speech" being about this I'm not able to cover it as clearly as I would like, because my opponent doesn't every really attack my initial argument. Intellectual property doesn't exist, because it never really leaves person's mind. They can create replicas, images and media out of it - but the idea is securely stuck in their noggin. The implication of this is that any capital created as a product or by-product of intellectual property, is separate from intellectual property itself.
Therefore we can see that Intellectual Property is not capital, but a means to create capital.

3. Adequate Coverage-

Extending the Burden of proof argument down here alongside the comments I make in my conclusion, we see the my opponent doesn't do a very good job of showing that all property is capital; he only gives us a very simplified illustration of Yu-Gi-Oh cards. I'm not saying my opponent must explicitly cover all property, but for goodness sakes does need to show his theory in more than one way.

There are other areas I'd like to cover, but I'm running out of room. Aside from that I don't want to over-saturate this debate with too much. So at this I'd like to hand the debate back over to opponents!

= Sources =
[6] http://www.bookrags.com...
[7] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
DanT

Con

= 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

buckIPDA

Pro

= Introduction =
First off, let me thank my opponent for this debate as a whole. I've had a lot of fun, as I hope he has as well.
Since this is the last round, I won't spend as much time on the line-by-line since my opponent won't get a chance to respond. Instead I'm just going to run down the flow, make my final comments/refutations/etc. and then offer up a few voters at the end.

= Burden of Proof =
First, let me clarify that I am not the one who made the claim of X, whereas X states that all property is capital. I did not instigate this debate. My opponent made the claim of X as he raised the issue concerning property as capital in the first place. At the moment he took a stance on an issue he raised, he makes a claim which he has the burden to fulfill.

Furthermore, I ask you; what would my opponent be advocating if he didn't claim that all property is capital? Even if I had instigated this debate, and my opponent came in to oppose me, by default he would have to advocate that all property is capital in order to refute my arguments.

The burden of proof is shared, as I have already stated, however my opponent has the main burden as this debate's instigator.

= Criteria for Capital =
Sadly it appears that this point has become a definition debate.
Definitions are inadequate as a standard of reference for anything, because definitions can often miss the point entirely.[8] "No definition, particularly a brief one, is likely to satisfy everyone because definitions tend to weaken and require qualification when confronted by the uniqueness of individual works. George Cuvier, a French naturalist defines a whale in his nineteenth-century study The Animal Kingdom [as being] a mammiferous Animal without hind feet. Curvier's description is technically correct, however there is little wisdom in it."
The same principle is applicable here, while my opponent's definitions are wholesome, they don't provide a standard of weight any more than a definition of math would provide a formula for solving an equation.

= Intellectual Property =
a. art-
Most of the argument my opponent has made in the prior "speech" are just a rehashing of my own arguments. therefore for clarity's sake I'm only going to cover the new arguments made. I will also be grouping various points for the clarity and understanding of the voters.

Working Capital-
My opponent never mentions working capital before this point in the debate. Not only does that make it a new argument, which is generally frowned upon following a constructive argument, but it also stands to count this as as a drop for my opponent's prior line of argumentation.
Working capital is fundamentally different from regular capital, as working capital doesn't require a trade-off and it's intent isn't always to create profit. This claim isn't even linear to my opponent's initial argument (see Yu-Gi-Oh cards in round 2). With working capital you don't trade anything, but instead you produce profit without a trade-off being necessary. This fundamentally separates it from regular capital, necessitating a separate term for it in the first place.

For Sale-
A person's net worth has nothing to do with determining whether or not all property is capital. In fact this is a circular argument, as it's workability is based in an assumption that all property is capital.
Also, cross-apply the argument concerning Property versus property rights (I'll cover this fully in the next argument).
Mickey Mouse only ever truly existed in the mind of Walt Disney. He drew him, animated him, and built a multimillion dollar industry with his help; however when he died Mickey went with him. His image continues to generate profit for the Disney corporation, but he in effect no longer exists because he is not, nor was he ever, a physical manifestation outside the mind of Walt Disney. When you look at the pictures of Mickey hyper-linked by my opponent in the prior round, you don't see Mickey but a drawing of Mickey[6].

b. Music-
Right to music-
I think my opponent missed my point here concerning the distinction between property and property rights. Basically (this is for the voters' sake), Property is what you own be it intellectual or other. Property rights are the legislation which protect the aformentioned property.

My opponent ignores the mention of Locke's Social contract here.

My opponent makes this argument from the viewpoint of industrialized music, not music in it's entirety.

Piracy-
My argument never intended to advocate piracy, I make that rather explicit. Instead this argument serves as an illustration of how a music download is not capital despite being intellectual property.
Plus piracy doesn't take money away from artists, it just prevents them from making more (though even that has been the subject of much controversy[9]. *cough The Avengers cough*.)

Beyond that, my opponent completely drops my argument about reselling a download. Basically if I where to download Karmin's new album Hello[5], I couldn't profit from that download despite owning that data.

2. Sufficiency-
a. Currency is not a sufficient Standard-
I didn't say my opponent's argument was too long and I didn't read it, I said the content was largely the same so I would simply extend those arguments over to 2a and "spare the voters the TL;DR."

Also extend 1b down here. With the CD example, the disc itself has value but not the music on it. With the Flash Drive example, what happened to my opponent's stark opposition to piracy in the previous "speech"? Anyway you're selling the flash drive not the data on it.

b. Advocacy
Extend the refutation seperating property from property rights. They aren't the same thing, and the government as an agent of protection as nothing to do with the property's classification as Capital.

Adequate Coverage-
My opponent just called me ignorant. I think that's adequate ground to warrant a loss in conduct.
Beyond that, it is not ignorance on my part when the burden of proof is left open to interpretation and I happen to offer framework for it my opponent disagrees with.

= Voters/Conclusions/Final Statements =
I'll be as concise as possible here. There plenty of reasons to vote Pro, but I'm going to focus on four.
1. Piracy and digital music-
If the only copy of digital music I have is one that I have downloaded from iTunes, or some other online music store, then that property is not capital as do not have the rights to resell it. Go and read the iTunes user end agreement contract[10]. You'll see that it is a violation of their terms use to resell that content.
Impact-
No matter who you vote for on the burden of proof argument, this alone fulfills the burden of all property not being capital.

2. Mickey Mouse-
I bought my mom a coffee mug with Mickey Mouse on it when I was in Austin. That must mean she owns Mickey Mouse right? Nope, she owns a coffee mug. Despite Mickey Mouse adorning the mug, Disney has in no way lost Mickey.
Impact-
While the mug itself is capital, Mickey isn't. Disney hasn't lost ownership of him, or their property rights concerning him; they have however gained profit from my buying that mug.

3. Pro Flow-
All the arguments from my "speech" in round two onwards are on the Pro's flow. My opponent hasn't even extended his original arguments throughout this round.
Impact-
Since there are only pro arguments on the flow, I only need to win one of them to win the round. There aren't even any Con arguments to consider.

4. Currency-
My opponent's initial argument doesn't even advocate that all property is capital; it advocates that Yu-Gi-Oh cards can serve as a system of currency.

Thanks guys!

= Sources =
[8] http://www.bedfordstmartins.com...
[9] http://www.techspot.com...
[10] http://www.apple.com...
[x] http://www.econlib.org...
Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
Why do people like post RFD's in the comments? Wouldn't it save time to use the RFD area the way it was intended? You don't need a >500 character justification. Anyone can be satisfied with less.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
I didn't say OMG vote bombed I said CiRrK did
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Everyone - there's no point to debating if it's all for the purpose of generating wins. What debating is all about is having fun and trying your best - no judge in the world can take that away from you. Leaderboards and win ratios are largely irrelevant. I have my opinion about who should have won, but there's no reason for either debater to get upset about that. All that matters is what YOU think about the debate, not what I think.

So stop it.

All this bickering is doing nobody any good, and besides, only serves as a disincentive to vote on a site that is unfortunately fairly vote-dry. Even if OMG did vote-bomb (and I don't think he did) then go talk to him about it and ask him some questions. Don't go blabbing on about it on the comments. And if you thought you totally deserved a win, you can talk to the judges about that as well. Asking the opposing debater won't really bring anything either, only drive animosity.

Just to clear the record, buckIPDA did message me and ask me to vote in this debate. The fact that the time I read it was shortly before the voting period was up is simply coincidence. I did not communicate with any other voter. I gave deep consideration to the arguments in this debate and, because of the complexity involved in judging debates where people are speaking past one another, used a separate sheet of paper to help make my evaluation. I never vote for somebody just because they've sent me a message or because of any reputation or esteem I may hold them in, and my voting record will back that up.

Anybody who wants further clarification can message me and get it.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Than why on earth did you drop my argument in every round?
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
@OMGJustinBieber: Oh wow :O! Look at that!
@DanT: "the argument's refutation has been grouped with 1b, so I'm just going to spare you reads the TL;DR, and extend those refutations here."
I didn't say it was too long and I didn't read it, I said I would spare the readers unneccessary TL;DR by extending the prior arguments.
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 4 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
I'm male, by the way.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
In order for one to reason one must be logical. You are illogical. First you didn't eve bother to read my arguments claiming they were "tl;dr", than you claimed that since you didn't bother to read my argument that my argument was never made.

Just because you refused to read something, does not mean it was never written. It's illogical to claim otherwise.

I am more than willing to have a decent conversation, but you are illogical; you ignored everything I said in my debate. My round 2 argument was completely ignored, and you focused on refuting the image rather than the argument; which you most likely didn't read, seeing as you already admitted you didn't bother to read my round 3 argument.

With all the arguments you dropped throughout the debate, you should have lost hands down.
You refuted non of my arguments, and you had the BOP which you failed to meet.
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
Reasoning with you, or even trying to have a decent conversation is like talking to a cantaloupe.
Only if I where to cut you open and share you with my family at a picnic, I would most likely go to jail.

Anyway, all bad analogies aside, I'm done with this.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
CiRrK vote bombed. My argument never changed throughout the debate, because you never addressed it. You dropped my argument for working capital in each round, so I had to keep repeating the argument. The fact you dropped it so many times, should have lost you the debate.

Hell, in round 3 you went so far as to admit you never even read my argument.

I'm not claiming he vote bombed because I disagree, I claimed he vote bombed because it does not reflect the debate. It reflects your false accusations.

I don't know if OMGJustinBieber or LarztheLoser were vote bombs or not. But I do know OMG does not like me, and she has a hard time gasping certain concepts. So her RFD regarding the BOP probably does reflects her actual opinion, because like you, she has a hard time grasping such concepts as resolutions, and BOPs. I'm not claiming those 2 were vote bombs, I'm just saying it's a mighty big coincidence, that in the last 2 hours you got enough votes to flip the points in your favor.
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
Dude, I didn't even know that OMGJustinBieber or LarztheLoser where going to vote.

Why is it considered a vote-bomb to you just because you disagree the voter's RFD?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
DanTbuckIPDATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 4 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
DanTbuckIPDATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There was a lot of BoP and definitional quarrels, but Pro's point about the ontological status of mickey mouse not as representation but as a concept existing solely within the head of walt disney and as intellectual property was powerful. I believe Con had BoP. Great effort on both sides though.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DanTbuckIPDATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a debate over the definition of "capital." Po had to come up with a definition of "property" that didn't fit the definition of "capital." He tried to argue that intellectual property is not capital, but that fails, because it meets all the requirements of having value and being able to be bought and sold. He might have tried things like "my ancestry" or "my education" because they cannot be sold, but then the question is whether they are property.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
DanTbuckIPDATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: blah
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
DanTbuckIPDATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
DanTbuckIPDATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: So it ultimately came down to a technicality - no new arguments in the last round. Unfortunately for Con Im rigid on this. The argument Pro tells us is that an idea is not inherently capital, rather the implications of the idea are. But, the idea is still a type of property. The working capital argument was new so I struck it from the flow-record. At that point Pro wins on intellectual property. Also the argument about no criteria or brightline could have been another pro-voter but ill end her