Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public

Thanks again to CDB ! I will defend my case, and then address Con's case.PRO's CASEOverview 1This is a debate about what SHOULD be, not what IS. Therefore, just because something is happening in the status quo does not mean it should continue to happen.In fact, Con is essentially saying with his FD example that because something is happening in the status quo, it should continue to happen. Con writes: "If it really is outside 'governments legitimate scope of authority,' then why is it already here and testing drugs for both safety and effectiveness."This is HIGHLY CIRCULAR logic. He is saying that the status quo is justified because it is the status quo. Remember that Con, in the OP, says that the Burden of Proof is SHARED. This means he must justify that validity of the status quo just as much as I must show reasons to change the status quo. We cannot simply accept that the status quo is good.Overview 2This is not a U.S.-specific debate. The resolution refers to "governments" not to the "U.S. government." Therefore, we are discussing governments as a whole or as an abstract concept. All the U.S.-specific evidence is thus largely invalid because it does not apply to the other 190+ nations on the planet.RebuttalsJust for ease of reference, P1 stands for paragraph one, P2 for paragraph 2, etc. The "Housekeeping" section is not included in the paragraph count.P1: Scope of GovernmentI argue that effectiveness testing is beyond the legitimate scope of a government's authority. Con's response is to provide the example of the FDA, which is empowered to test for effectiveness. There are three problems with this: (1) Con is employing circular reasoning as noted in OV1, (2) this is U.S.-specific as noted in OV2, and (3) just because something is happening in the status quo does not mean it is justified.Con then accuses me of wanting to change the system for "no good reason." In fact, I did provide a good reason, which I shall review later.P2: Human Dignity and Self-OwnershipI explain how humans have dignity and how this dignity involves the notion of self-ownership. Con's response is, "Okay. What does this have to do with drug testing?" I would point out that at this point he has, through his failure to rebut anything, conceded that human have dignity and that this makes them self-owners. The relevance of these arguments will become clear shortly.P3: Impact of Self-OwnershipCon fails to respond to this following: "The moral force that is human dignity thus constrains government action and sets limits on what a government should be able to do. It must respect self-ownership, or it has overstepped its bounds." Thus, Con concedes that self-ownership constrains government.Next, Con talks about prohibition and marijuana restrictions. These examples invoke the exact same circular logic of the FDA example. The exact same triad of objections can therefore be applied here: (1) Con is employing circular reasoning as noted in OV1, (2) this is U.S.-specific as noted in OV2, and (3) just because something is happening in the status quo or transpired in the past does not mean it is justified, should have occurred, or should be occurring.P4: Resolutional ConnectionAgain Con employs circular logic, discussing what the U.S. government is doing right now. Con is assuming erroneously that this debate is rooted in law is right now, when in fact this debate is questioning what the law should be. So, I don't need to point to a "physical law that states the government can only" prevent direct harm, because I am showing that that is all a government should be able to do.Recall the resolution: "Governments SHOULD only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public."Con then claims that I am being illogical, that if the pill is ineffective people could die. Yes, that is true, but it is a risk that a libertarian state would have to permit. Just as it would be unjust to force a cyclist to wear a helmet because they have a right to choose not to (as self-owners), companies and people can manufacture drugs that are potentially ineffective, so long as they make no claims regarding the drugs efficacy. When people buy those drugs then, they know that they may not work, and are thus taking on a risk that they are aware of; as long as people choose to incur the risk, it is acceptable. Also, keep in mind that third-party corporations might form to take advantage of the commercial gap, and could be hired to test drugs for effectiveness themselves.Ultimately, Con has lost at this point. If (a) Self-Ownership exists--conceded by Con in P2--and (b) Self-ownership constrains governments--conceded by Con in P3--then all I need to show is (c) that Self-ownership prevents governments from testing for effectiveness.I achieve (c) in three different, separate ways: (1) preventing government interference in the pharmaceutical industry, (2) allowing companies and their owners to exercise their property rights to sell what they make sans government interference, and (3) ensuring average people's property rights are respected by not denying them the right to buy certain products even if they may be ineffective.Con offers absolutely no reason why the government would be more trustworthy than a company. In fact, a company's profit-motivation would seem to make it more reliable, since if it was wrong about a test, it would receive bad press and not be hired as frequently to do testing jobs.LinksL1: Why is philosophy invalid in a debate about what a government should do? Surely, political theory is always relevant in questions of that nature. Con just assumes, without reason, that philosophy is invalid, even if it raises a valid point in the debate.L2: Con hasn't pointed out any flaws in Nozick's philosophy that I am aware of. Merely, Con has engaged in a string on logical fallacies.L3: Just because something is old does not mean it is invalid. Newton lived hundreds of years ago yet he is still widely cited. Since the information this link is giving is not time-sensitive, it does not need to be recent to be worthwhile.Final note: I mention several philosophers in this debate. It is hardly the philosophy of one man as Con misrepresents it to be. But even if it were, why would that be a reason to reject it? Wouldn't that be an ad populum fallacy?CON's CASECounterplan/PermutationTurn Con's entire case. Corporations can solve for all of the problems and reap all of the benefits that Con mentions in his case, and they can do it better that a government because they have a profit-motive. Companies want to be as efficient and accurate as possible because when they are in efficient or inaccurate, they lose customers. These same incentives are not shared by governments. Thus, companies can likely do effectiveness testing better than governments. [1] TurnTurn Con's entire case. We can actually get more research into drug effectiveness and use by affirming. Deregulation will lead to increased research on new drugs because, if drugs don't have to go through lengthy government certifications regarding effectiveness prior to being sourced on pharmacy shelves, products will get to the marketplace with greater alacrity. As it is easier to get drugs to market, it's more likely that investors would finance pharmaceutical research.OtherCon makes use of fallacious, circular logic. He offers no warrants for how effective governments are in effectiveness testing and he does not argue for anything that cannot be done by a non-government entity in my world. Also, no new arguments should be given in the last round as this would be unfair.SOURCEJames Taylor [Associate Professor, College of New Jersey], “Market-Based Reforms in Health Care Are Both Practical and Morally Sound,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, Special Issue: SYMPOSIUM 1: Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Medicine, Volume 40, Issue 3, (Fall 2012), pp. 537–546