I remember trying to fix my old laptop a few years back. The fan was dying, a simple swap-out job. But the manufacturer had glued the battery in and used proprietary screws. That wasn't innovation; it was a brick wall. And that's my core point: the right to repair doesn't stifle innovation, it redirects it toward better, more sustainable engineering. Look at the tractor industry. For decades, farmers could fix their own John Deere equipment. Then, companies started embedding software locks that made even basic diagnostics the sole property of dealerships. Did this lead to a burst of new, innovative tractor features? No. It led to farmers hacking their own tractors with Ukrainian firmware and a cottage industry of "illegal" repair shops. The innovation happened in spite of the restriction, not because of it. The company's R&D budget shifted to creating digital locks, not better ploughs. Now, contrast that with the automotive sector, which has been governed by a right to repair agreement for years. Any independent shop can access the same diagnostic tools and parts as the dealership. Has this killed car innovation? Look at the explosion of electric vehicles, advanced driver-assistance systems, and infotainment. The competition is fierce, and the innovation is in the actual product performance and safety, not in who can lock the hood shut. Companies compete on making a better car, not a more un-fixable one. The argument that repair rights hurt innovation assumes companies will just stop trying if they can't control the aftermarket. But the real-world evidence shows the opposite. It forces them to compete on durability, modularity, and genuine value. When you design a phone that can be easily opened, you have to think harder about internal layout and component quality. That's real engineering innovation. Gluing it shut is the easy way out.

My opponent makes a great point about their old car, and I actually think it proves my side. That 2002 model is a perfect example of an industry operating under right to repair principles. And look what happened: the competition to make better cars didn't stop. Innovation raced ahead into hybrids, electric vehicles, and advanced safety tech. The rules didn't stifle that; they just ensured the innovation was in the vehicle's function, not in locking the hood. But let's get concrete about where the "innovation" goes when repair is restricted. Look at Apple's AirPods. They're a marvel of miniaturization, but they are famously impossible to repair. The batteries are glued in and sealed. When they die in two years, you throw them out. Now, ask yourself: is the primary innovation here the audio quality or the Bluetooth connectivity? Or is a significant part of the engineering effort and "innovation" actually directed toward achieving that un-repairable, disposable form factor? Companies are innovating at making things thinner and more sealed, not more durable or serviceable. That's a misdirection of R&D. Contrast that with Framework laptops. They're a startup whose entire innovation is modular, repairable design. You can swap out the ports, upgrade the RAM, replace the screen easily. Their innovation is in the engineering of the hinge mechanism, the standardized mainboard, the tool-less entry. They're competing directly with Apple by offering a better, more sustainable product precisely because they embraced repairability. That's real, meaningful innovation that serves the user long-term. My opponent says locking things down locks in obsolescence. I agree. But the critical point is that this obsolescence is often the product that is being sold. The business model innovation becomes "planned obsolescence," not "longer-lasting device." When we push for right to repair, we aren't saying "make worse products." We're saying, "stop innovating in ways that deliberately shorten product life." The evidence shows that when companies are forced to think about repair, like in the auto industry, they simply innovate elsewhere—in ways that actually benefit us.

I completely agree with you that the innovation happening in garages and with companies like Framework is valuable. But that's exactly my point. Right now, that kind of modular, user-friendly design is the exception, not the rule, precisely because the dominant business model rewards the opposite. The "innovation" we're seeing from most major players is in creating sealed devices, and that's what the right to repair movement is pushing back against. It's not hurting innovation; it's challenging a specific, wasteful kind of it. You mentioned the study on appliances breaking down faster. That's the smoking gun. When companies innovate to make things less repairable, the outcome is more waste, not better technology. My AirPods example stands. The engineering feat isn't just making great wireless earbuds; it's making ones that are impossible to service, ensuring a repeat purchase. Redirecting that engineering talent toward making a repairable version of something just as small and powerful would be a far more impressive innovation. Look at another case: medical equipment. Hospitals have faced lawsuits for trying to fix their own ventilators or MRI machines because manufacturers use software locks and proprietary parts. Is the innovation here in life-saving technology, or is it in creating a captive, expensive service market? When right to repair laws are proposed for this sector, the argument against them is always about safety and innovation. But the real-world result of the lockout is that hospitals, especially in rural areas or developing countries, can't maintain critical gear. Forcing companies to provide manuals and parts wouldn't stop them from innovating on imaging quality or treatment precision; it would just stop them from innovating on monopoly control. The car industry proves this can work. The innovation in EVs and self-driving is happening at a breakneck pace, all while independent shops can still service the brakes and suspension. The competition is on the actual technology, not the lock. The right to repair movement is simply arguing we should apply that successful model to everything else. It doesn't hurt technological progress; it refocuses it on what truly matters to the user, not just the manufacturer's bottom line.