Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

My opponent claims that I automatically agree with his interpretation of the resolution, even though I specifically said otherwise last round: "However, I will say this: his resolutional analysis is wrong, and he will know it if he simply reads through it carefully. As it is, his supposed burdens for pro and con are not mutually exclusive." However, let's consider what we're faced with if I did concede his interp: After reading this debate with no preexisting bias, a judge will either be convinced that there is one public health concern (Malaria) that justifies government violation of pharmaceutical patents, or that there are zero. Neither PRO nor CON have argued for more than one public health concern that justifies government violation of pharmaceutical patent. According to Yraelz's interp: PRO must show that: "their are at least two scenarios that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents" (ignore his use of the wrong there, we know what he meant) CON must show that: "there is only one (singular) or that there are zero public health concerns that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents." CON's burden of proof remains untouched. No one has argued against it; in fact, we have both been arguing for my side, Yraelz arguing for 1 public health concern (malaria) and me arguing for 0. PRO's burden of proof, however, has been consistently argued against by CON. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof to a higher extent than my opponent, even based on his flawed analysis of the resolution. Even before my rebuttal, there is more reason to vote for CON based on the interp Yraelz claims we both agree with. Now, if we leave fairly tale land and we see the resolution for what it actually means (based on the completely valid thinking in PRO's round 1), we see that PRO must instead show that there are at least two PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS, something he has simply failed to do. Now, we're still arguing FOR my side of the resolution, but we're also BOTH arguing AGAINST his. With that, I will now proceed to rebutting my opponent's Round 3. First, he claims that me dropping one of my points was abusive to him. This is ridiculous, since me dropping a point only helps him. It is not my fault, either, that he wasted so much space rebutting a point that could have been rebutted in only one paragraph. 2a: My opponent claims that no quantity of these drugs are sold to any of sub-Saharan Africa. That seems like a claim that would require some backing, in a world where travel and overseas shipping are so widely available. The richest portion of sub-S Africa can certainly go buy some of these drugs, something they would be less willing to do if their government offered the drugs for free. Also, my opponent dropped the point about the injustice of the government acting illegally. This is reason enough for the government to seek a mutual agreement with the patent holder. 2b: It has already been stated in this debate that we are speaking of present tense. The impoverished nations, namely sub-Saharan Africa, do not have nationalized drug companies. In rebuttal to point 1, my opponent specified that it would be possible for certain communist countries, who have drug companies, to produce drugs. It is abusive for my opponent to all of a sudden switch away from this; point 1 would still have been valid. There are no sub-Saharan governments who can violate a Pharma patent, since none of these government produce drugs. Further, even an impoverished nation could afford to pay a couple bucks for something of this significance. If the company stands to lose nothing or close to it, they should be fine with it, right? 2c: My opponent accepts my definition of violate. Then, he provides us with a definition of break. However, when the Oxford dictionary uses the word break, it means break as defined in the Oxford dictionary, thus Yraelz's non-Oxford definition does not fit into the Oxford definition of violate. http://www.askoxford.com... Definition 4 would be the only meaningful definition here. With that said, it is now only possible to break a law in the sense that we colloquially mean it - we have to fail to comply with the terms of the law (or patent). Thus, there is no violation at step 2 (when the patent is changed). There is also no violation at step 3, since the original patent no longer exists in it's previous form; it has been modified. _________________ My opponent suggests that both methods are equally just. Even if the Pharmaceutical company stands to lose nothing, it is not 'just' for one to have spent billions of dollars for something and for the other to get it for free (by means of stealing, nonetheless). My opponent has failed to show how my plan is inferior to his. __________________ My opponent claims that using medicine is avoiding natural selection., This is true - if we are not made to pay for our medicine. In the United States, a person does not get medicine unless they have been productive enough to get enough money to buy it. This is not abolishing natural selection. To allow sub-Saharan Africa to bypass natural selection here by being given handouts of this sort, we're in fact stopping natural selection from bringing them out of poverty. We're trapping them in poverty. Also, I never supported genocide, as my opponent claims I did. Please ignore this Straw Man. I supported a lack of action, which would then do less children the severe injustice (as admitted by my opponent) of being born into poverty. My opponent then moves to the resolutional analysis, which I already brought up. I agreed with the general thinking he conveyed. The thinking, which he explained, would bring us to the conclusion that he has to show multiple public health concerns that justify government violation of pharma patent, and I have to show that there are 1 or none. He in fact correctly stated my side of the resolution. I did not have to explicitly accept or reject my opponent's analysis since it was fundamentally flawed; as we have seen, the burdens are not mutually exclusive, as they should be. Therefore, Yraelz has argued in favor of BOTH our sides of the resolution, where I have argued in favor of mine and against his. My opponent ends with an extremely loaded statement. "Sub-S has many public health concerns, but the 900,000 malaria concerns can be solved for now." First, he simply asserts that there are many. However, he has not argued that any of these justify government violation of pharmaceutical patent. Next, he makes a hidden assertion that each individual case of malaria is a public health concern. This is just not true. Throughout this debate, as well as colloquially, a public health concern is a disease, not a specific instance of that disease. A single instance of malaria could not possibly be a public health concern, since it is not contagious. A disease has the ability to spread, so it is a public health concern. An instance of this disease in a person cannot spread, so it is not. My opponent didn't bother trying to back this hidden point up because he knew he could not. Either way, he has not supported it, and I have argued against it (as is my right, since it was a new point brought up last round). For great justice, vote CON. My side of the resolution stands stronger than my opponent's.