Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

I, too, am dejected that one of us will no longer be in the tournament after this round. With how quickly I tend to respond compared to most people, the loser of this debate may even be the first person to officially be out of the tourney. Also, I give my gratitude to ye, Yraelz, that the opening argument wasn't an 8000 character wall of text. With that said, I will get on to my argument. Unlike how I would ordinarily do this, I will be putting my argument before any responses to my opponent's case. The reason will become apparent. _________________________________________ POINT 1 : The government can't violate pharmaceutical patents. 1a. Pharmaceutical patents limit who is able to produce a drug. 1b. To violate such a patent, one would have to produce said drug without being the patent holder. 1c. The government cannot, should not, and will not produce drugs. 1d. From 1b and 1c, we can draw the conclusion that the government cannot, should not, and will not violate any pharmaceutical patent. Clarification for 1c: The government's job is to govern. The government has no ability to produce goods, let alone drugs. Just as the government turns to defense contractors for tanks, etc, they would have to get a pharmaceutical company to produce the drugs for them. This company, if it was not the patent-holding company and the patent was still valid, would then be the one violating the patent, whereas the resolution clearly states that the government must be the one to violate the patent. _________________________________________ I was going to leave it at that, but I decided I'd throw in another, independent argument. _________________________________________ POINT 2 : An alternate, fairer, more effective advocacy. 2a. It is unfair to the Pharmaceutical company for the government to violate their patent. 2b. The government and the Pharmaceutical company can come to a mutual agreement, whereby they can nullify the patent or a special exception can be made for the government. 2c. If the patent is first nullified or a special exception is made for the government, then the government would no longer be able to violate the patent. 2d. This plan is more fair then Yraelz' plan, and it avoids other disadvantages. Clarification for 2d: Disadvantages my plan avoids: In Yraelz's scenario, the entire use of a pharmaceutical patent would become meaningless. Companies spend billions of dollars researching new drugs, and because of this, they get to be the sole producers of the drug for X years. Without the patent, the company has no incentive to research drugs, especially drugs that could potentially cure dangerous, widespread diseases. Helping people out is not a major incentive for a pharmaceutical company to do research. These companies do research because of potential profit. And when they start losing profit on drugs of this type, they simply won't bother dumping their money into research for them. The government is no longer acting outside the law in my scenario, while it is in Yraelz's. The burden of paying for this is now put in the right hands: that of the government, the body that's deciding to give away these drugs. If my mom needs some pills that Yraelz happens to have, I can't simply take them from him because it might save a life. I must pay him for it. It would possibly be different if I had no money to pay him for the pills, but that is not the case here. The government has enough money, and they have plenty of ways to get more money. Intellectual theft is not required on part of the government, it can simply make a mutually agreeable exchange, just like everyone else has to. _________________________________________ So those are my two points for now. Since either of them makes the entirety of Yraelz' opening argument irrelevant, I need not respond to his argument unless these points fall. The points I have made, for now, are rebuttal enough. This means that if I can still argue the paradigm my opponent is operating under, I can still argue any of the point about malaria, etc. However, for the time, such arguments are unnecessary, and would only bloat the debate to an unnecessary level. Back to ye, Yraelz. Good luck, I know you'll think of something crazy.