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

Thank you for taking this debate. I'm basically just going to go straight down your last speech in rebuttal. I. Value My opponents value is natural rights. Certainly this is valuable but my argument against this is that people's true right is to be safe. If there is a patent that stands in the way of a person and their health, do you think that person deserves the natural right to life... of course s/he does. The true natural right is the PRO side and a healthy society. Therefore, the greatest value achieved in this round is public welfare since the good of people is the natural right. The PRO side thus achieves both values. Since my opponent contends that the patent right is higher than the right to good health (as he claims when taking the CON side of this debate) you will see that he loses value from the get go. Sure people deserve their right to a patent, but when there are public health concerns, you MUST see it as justified as violating the patent. He talks about "just compensation" but what you have to see is that the U.S. Government I'm sure would be willing to give just compensation (as they do with eminent domain)... AND even if they didn't the person who owned the patent would be able to sue to get their "just compensation." The only person within this resolution that does not get their "just compensation" or what they are deserved is the CON'S average citizen under the public health concern... Therefore, it would be justified in order to violate that patent which is the only way in which to truly achieve this life (better and more life with fewer health concerns), liberty (liberty to good health), and pursuit of happiness (happy with good health) that he talks about. II. Criterion Let's begin by evaluating his criterion. He claims limited government but what you have to see is that "both sides" are NOT happy. The patent holder is happy (more than likely) put the public with the health concerns is NOT happy whatsoever. How can he achieve his value if he can not even get his criterion. Both sides are only happy with the PRO side with the good health AND the assumed "just compensation" (via government issue or suing rights)... Therefore PRO gets the CON's criterion while CON can not. III. Criterion- Prudence Voters, I simply urge you to be prudent yourself and see the justification of keeping the public and their health concerns under control. Simply ask yourself, would you want to put your health in the hands of some random patent holder out there? I know that I wouldn't, therefore, I can only see it as justified for the government to protect the public in violating the patent. Certainly the patent holder is issued to keeping his patent, BUT the government protecting the public is justified. I would suspect that the government and the patent owner could come to an agreement, but if no agreement is achieved, the public MUST come first and them coming first is justified. IV. In event of emergency. The only emergency in this round ought to be flowed to the PRO side. The emergency is the public health concerns. This contention is where he talks about the "just compensation"... but what he fails to look at is the public's compensation. Don't you think that they deserve the compensation of good health?... of course they do. The "just compensation" will come for the patent holder in due time, but with great power comes great responsibility and if the patent holder doesn't abide to that philosophy, it would be justified to violate that patent to be responsible and protect the public. I urge you to flow through my III argument of the patent not being as important as the public and therefore vote PRO. Thank You!