Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

First off, I apologize for missing the previous round. It wasn't my objective doing i assure you. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Okay, first off i'm going to revise and address the previous assertions of my case from my opponent and correct them. Then i'm going to finish off pointing out the flaws in my opponent's case. And i'll top it off with a framework for the opp. So, first off reviewing the previous actions of my opponent i'm glad that we agree on a definition of violation. Violation: A disobeying of a rule or law. For my first contention my opponent states that this is "unwarranted?"{The government violates intellectual rights only temporarily, and only for the good of the nation. My opponent's speculation about totalitarian governments is unwarranted, as there is no reason to believe that government will violate any rights other than a specific type of intellectual rights for only a temporary period.} First off, i challenge my opponent to cite points in history where the government has directly violated it's own law for the people. The truth is it hasn't. IT HAS CHANGED LAWS. the fact about violation of rights being temporary is actually unwarranted for my opponent. If the government wants something that they don't have they'll do anything to obtain it. And it's not always for the good of the people i can assure you. Plus, even if there is a violation for a temporary period that can be enough to destroy corporations by violation of infringement rights. And companies in our present times is something for which we need to protect. (also, the resolution never stated temporary violation; so that rebuttal is void) Next, for the next contention of the changing of leniency terms. What is so bad? My opponent states that this is far worse that purposely violating a law because it reflects a totalitarian government. However, did you forget that it first takes the word of the people to put laws into action. Or representatives of the people to make these laws apparent. Rather than destroying companies for what the government chooses is right taking the word of the people or public reps. is much more convenient and helpful. I think that my option is not worse and does not reflect the mentality of a totalitarian gov. And about my Obama quote...i found it necessary where as my opp.is using totally random quotes from Star Trek and dead French people who didn't even know what the word pharmaceutical meant. Moving on......"Contention 3: The whole point of laws in an equal society is so that everyone follows them." The point of a law is not to be followed: this purpose is purely circular, and proves nothing outside of itself. No additional refutation is necessary. what is this??? I don't even understand what your trying to say. this is not a legitimate rebuttal whatsoever and my point still stands. Sufficient standards of sense need to be met to successfully refute a point and you definitely don't meet those standards. THUS, my point definitely still stands. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Now, let me make a statement that really will set grounds for this debate. Majority of pharmaceuticals in their development for mainstream products that benefit the people in times of need are given major grants by the government. This gives the government partial ownership and distribution rights for times of social disruption. It's with this knowledge that the government in the first place WON"T HAVE TO violate any such laws whatsoever to help the people in times of struggle. Because majority of the drugs have already been signed off by pharmaceuticals for the government to distribute in times of struggle. Also, an additional issue to add is that most of the time major research projects take pharmaceuticals a long time to come up with a new drug. Direct violation of the pharmaceutical from the government is like someone taking your hard work away from you. Thus, any violation on unappropriated terms is not tolerable whatsoever and therefore unaccepted. Because pharmaceuticals will definitely utilize legal means to compensate for their loss if their research gets out. Which will cause the government to probably lose more money for a legal battle. Which in present times the government cannot sustain. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Moving on to my opps. points... First off, i wasn't really refuting the Kant quote..i was just pointing out the limited validity in this debate. About my second rebuttal my opponents favorite rebuttal is to state things as circular. In any type of debate simply stating arguments as circular holds no place in any debate. Whether it's online or at an actual NFL tournament. Trust me, if a judge is staring at you and the only thing you say to protect your point is an argument is circular it's not going to fly. My opponent never said anything about protection against competitors at all. The point of the patent is to protect the inventor's rights from anything. Being that the resolution never said a "temporary" violation an inventor has the choice what to do with his own rights, because he earned them. Every single time in history though, violation has never been used due to the investor signing off to the government distribution in times of struggle. Moving onward...violation of any sort whether by the government or by any private investor will almost always put the patented material into jeopardy. It almost always happens. For this reason the government has always had many alternatives to deal with this and not harm the inventor and help the people at the same time. "[E]ven in times of public health concern the federal government may distribute the material the patented material to other companies to maximize product output. Those other companies always will want to steal the material." But if they do, it is illegal and they will be put in their place. Rights will then be restored to the original patent holder. The inventor is safe. How many times in history has it been when other companies cross the line to gain an advantage over the initial patent holder. Far too many. It'll definitely happen again if the material is out there. And the government can't always catch them. Because of the strategy of changing one small modification in the patented material then patenting the product as their own. Thus harming the inventor. About the scenario. Sure the government gives me my house back but now it's a trailer with two broken windows. a family of mice and a hellish bathroom. While my neighbor has somehow taken my tv and other appliances and built a mansion...... Now the Spock rebuttal. The scenario i used is definitely applicable to this debate. The majority will always outweigh the majority in any terms. Thus the true meaning of this example is true. If this was always the terms than no individual would have protection. We would be in a communist society. Because no rich person could survive and no minority would survive. and slavery would exist if this quote were true. based on in the past the majority still wanted slavery....so in essence this quote is definitely useless anywhere based on this rebuttal. ____________________________________________________________________________________ To wrap this up.. My stance is not to allow thousands of people grow sick whatsoever. I want to help them and get them the medicine they need. Which is why i provided many options in which the government has and still can utilize to help the people without destroying the general economy by taking down major pharmaceuticals. Because if you think about it. even if the government violates patent rights and tries to help the people major companies will die...destroying the economy which still endangers the people. I provided many option