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

I also agree with my opponent's definitions that he provided. As a brief road map before i begin; I'm going to first state my contentions, followed by a rebuttal of my opponents arguments, and finally a brief summary. I'd like to add one definition however, violation- an infringement of the rules in sports that is less serious than a foul and usually involves technicalities of play b: an act of irreverence or desecration. (Merriam-Websters 2009) I, Black Mask negate the following resolution Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents for the following reasons. .. . _________________________________________________ Contention 1: Government violation of an individuals intellectual rights increases the violation of future rights "Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law"-Sophocles Through the ages history has told us that anyone who violates a law within a society will eventually be punished by the system of government. However, what happens when the government is the one violating the law? Is it still a free functioning society? Or is it a society run by fear? In that instance the society is no longer just; but totalitarian. In Plato's book "Republic," he vividly painted the picture of a society without any laws as a state of anarchy. With the current resolution the government violation of patent laws is just the beginning. Think of this analogy first the government is robbing the people of their intellectual rights. What's next? their natural rights? their property rights? With the violation of such pharmaceutical patent laws it sets the standard for the people that laws are made only to be broken. Which as we all know is not the solution to uniting any country. Contention 2: Even in times of health concern there's been no need for a VIOLATION of patent laws simply a change. "CHANGE, WE CAN BELIEVE IN"- Barack Obama According to the NPRC(national pharmaceutical regulatory committee) during times of medical crisis up to current 2009 pharmaceutical corporations have been in full compliance and government violation has never been really called for. However, if in any time of crisis any country needs to call upon a pharmaceutical company which is monopolizing the market they don't have to VIOLATE the patent laws at all. If you refer back to my first contention reflection of government actions puts don't the validity of social laws in any society. So the alternative towards helping society without Violating a law is simply changing it. This is the alternative that i suggest rather than promote a society that has committed social suicide by the disregard of laws. Contention 3: The whole point of laws in an equal society is so that everyone follows them. Straightforward, by the caption. refer to past contentions for alternative and purpose. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ On to my opponent's points. 1. "Patent violation in the case of public health concern is consistent with the spirit of patents. " Apart from using a useless quote by Kant who didn't even know what the hell a patent was and what a pharmaceutical patent was for that matter my opps. statement is completely false. The definition of the spirit of patents is SO THAT THEY DON'T GET VIOLATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. by your definition at the end it looks like that you agree. Next you say that government violation doesn't jeopardize a patent rights? Hmmm. . well if it didn't then what would be the need for government intervention in the first place? seems as if that should be a contention for me. .. and second it GREATLY jeopardizes the inventors rights because the government is the one profiting off of the patented material. and heck studies in the 2007 yearly study report from the economist shows that pharmaceutical companies are primarily cutthroat which means that even 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. SO IT GREATLY PUTS IN JEOPARDY THE INVENTOR'S rights. 2. Human rights take precedence over property rights/When the life or health of a person is in danger, it overrides a person's property rights. Life is undeniably more important than property. ok based on what you just said right now let me put this into an understandable scenario. My neighbor is dying so the government get's to take away my house (because it's my property) and sell it to pay for his operation. Even though I didn't do anything at all. The government just took away my right because he was dying. This contention is completely void and vague and does not suggest a prominent solution whatsoever. {An Individual's rights cannot be taken away from them if someone's life is in danger. It's the government's duty to protect it's citizens at a all costs. ) 3. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. " -Spock Now apart from using a quote from a totally fictional character i just found out the dark truth about Spock. He was a raving racist as well as an insane Supremacist. you see let me break this quote down into a fellow scenario. DISCLAIMER(I AM NOT A RACIST OR CRAZY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM) there's a community of a MAJORITY of white people with a few blacks thrown in. the white's need is to lynch,rape, and kill all the black people. the needs of the black people are to survive. the whites are the many so they outweigh the needs of the few and get to kill everyone in the town. In short that's basically what your saying. Me, personally. .. i totally disagree with you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ So all in all here's how this went. .. My main point is that violations of laws by the lawmakers themselves is unwise, unconstitutional, and unfair. With government constantly setting the example of the people and having them break laws the influence would rip society apart. Kind of like if i grew up watching my mother lie, cheat, swear, steal, and murder i'd probably be in jail at the age of 12. Same with society, if the government can't RESPECT the individual rights of the people as well as the rights of a community as a whole then society is doomed. --- "Those who can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it"-George Santayana--i stand firm on this issue. Laws aren't meant to be broken. They're meant to be followed. if they weren't meant to be followed then they're not laws at all. Heck they're not even standards. My answer to if we really need to access pharmaceutical patents in times of public health concern is to not VIOLATE a law at all but to just change the law or policy. So that the people see that the government is taking truth over violation. My opponents contentions are all false. My opponents quotes are humoring and my opponent's overall structure reminds me of a 1,000 pound canary who has a beautiful voice but who can't simply get off the ground. Apart from my opponent's first point partially going in my favor. My opponent really has no true points due to the fact that both are false and non-specific. BASED ON THIS SUMMARY I CHOOSE THE COMPLIANCE OF LAWS FOR THE SURVIVAL OF SOCIETY. WHILE MY OPPONENT CHOOSES TO VIOLATE AND DISREGARD WHICH CAN ONLY LEAD TO CHAOS AND DISARRAY. THROUGH THIS ROUND I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT HARD TO SEE WHO'S RIGHT. .. . I want thank my opponent once again and I want to thank anyone taking the time to read and vote for this debate. Thank You.