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

You misinterpret my argument; it is not that the value of Natural Rights is superior to that of Public Welfare, but rather, that they are two rights, that the government may protect simultaneously (thus eliminating any reason to ignore patent laws). PRO simply wishes to manipulate my words (or lack thereof) by stating that, "The patent right is higher than the right to good health (as he claims when taking the CON side of this debate)." I claim no such thing and will not be accused of loosing value for doing so. The rights to life, liberty and property act as the legs of a tripod that support the pursuit of happiness; if one is to remove or lessen one of them, the entire structure falls. However, even with all three rights present, happiness is not a guarantee, as my opponent would like to make it seem. The founders knew this, and thus remained us that we are only granted the pursuit of it. That said, I am simply the CON in this debate as I do not see any reason for the government to break its own patent laws, rather than because the value put forth by PRO is any less than mine. The PRO supports my case when he agrees that, "the U.S. Government ... would be willing to give just compensation (as they do with eminent domain)." If this is the case, then you have lost your main argument as violate is defined as, "[To] act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises." If the U.S. government is paying compensation, they are in line with the laws of eminent domain and have violated nothing. Even if CON hadn't negated his own argument in his first paragraph, his rebuttal of my criterion serves only to lessen his case further. While he does state that in a limited government, capitalist system, "The patent holder is happy (more than likely) put the public with the health concerns is NOT happy whatsoever," he does nothing to support this claim or argue it further. All he manages to do is combine his first argument with the now purposed idea of "just compensation" (again weakening the term "violate") in an attempt to show how both sides are happy when the government is picking up the slack. He fails to show how the two sides actually would react in a "laissez faire" style system, or why they would be unhappy to negotiate to a reasonable, middle price. PRO then continues with a statement ("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 ... if no agreement is achieved, the public MUST come first and them coming first is justified.") that does nothing to refute my points, and only reinforces his already clear view on the subject. This statement is followed by a question aimed at the reader (and voter): "Would you want to put your health in the hands of some random patent holder out there?" To this I must reply that the control is in the hands of the consumer. One who remains fiscally responsible does not need the support of the government to afford healthcare and prescriptions. Simply through this means is the entire topic avoidable. Even those who are not so gifted in the ability to think ahead and save are already benefiting from other forms of government welfare money, of which a portion should be going to healthcare. At this point, CON falls back onto the cry of liberal politicians across the nation as he states, "The emergency is the public health concerns," as he attempts to refute my fourth main point ("In Case of Emergency"). However, one must consider the vast scale of the United States; less than 50 million of a population of over 300 million is not an emergency, it is a fact of life. There will always be those unable to afford commodities purchased by the masses, and those who refuse them in favor of having the government paying their way. It is also a fact that our government is governed by the majority, but still grants equal rights to all. Why should the 85% who are responsible enough to own insurance pay for their government to give what amounts to special treatment to the 15%? Yet CON believes that the 15% deserve their compensation too. I propose that health is not a compensation, it is something that is achieved and earned through good practice. Prudence on the part of the American public would drastically reduce the number of diseases contracted within our populous, and limit the healthcare field to treating only pre-existing conditions because little else remains. Take, for instance, 18 million Americans currently have Type II Diabetes and another 41 million are on the cusp (a condition known as prediabetes). Sadly, Type II Diabetes can be managed through watching one's diet and exercise. That lack of prudence is what brings upon this America's health issues, not the governments inability to lower the prices of commercial drugs.