That "debunk" is redundant. You assume intellect cannot be a property so that to copy without consent does not consist in theft. To debunk it, you need to start from the assumption that it consist in property and prove that at some point it contradicts itself or makes no sense. In this case your attempt fails, since you have to assume it stands as a property, in which case the copy is theft, which is aggression.
There is no 'aggression' in copying, as it is independent of the primary party (the author). No interaction between the 'author' and the 'copier' needs to occur. If no interaction, no violence can have taken place.