Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

I will make this as short as I can, since my laptop is sporadically shutting off every once in a while. _____________________ POINT 1: My opponent has sufficiently argued against point 1. I am no longer using it. Still, I will be holding onto 1b, one of the planks my opponent argued against. _____________________ POINT 2: 2a: My opponent has put forth that the company would not lose any profit, since the drug would only be given away to poor areas. However, this would make many people much less willing to buy it, especially people in, say, Africa. They would attempt to get it for free themselves or find someone poor who's selling it cheaper than the company (a phenomenon that's likely to happen). There is likely to be at least a little financial loss in it for the company. But this isn't the only form of injustice the company must suffer. The fact that their patent is being violated, that their rights no longer mean anything: this would be an injustice. An injustice that is easily avoided if the government simply came to a mutual agreement with the company rather than hypocritically breaking the law (which would also give the government a bad image). The point of 2a is that it is more fair for the two parties to come to an agreement, rather than one side (the government) deciding it can steal the other's intellectual property. Stealing is not necessary here. My opponent also attempted to 'turn' this argument, claiming something about the unfairness of 900,000 people dying of malaria. However, this is a completely irrelevant point, since my plan avoids these deaths just as well as his. Mine also avoids government acting illegally and heavy handedly, so it is superior in this regard. 2b: My opponent claims that companies would be unwilling to come to a mutual agreement. This makes little sense; he was just arguing that the company feels little to no financial loss from the government's production of their drug. Therefore, even a small amount of money, a small tax credit, etc. would be enough to get the company to agree to amend the terms of their patent. The government paying for what they take is much fairer than them illegally reaping the benefits of billions of dollars for research for their own ends (which in this case is saving 900,000 lives). Remember, the lives are saved in both cases. The company would be unlikely to refuse if a reasonable amount of money was offered them, since money is what drives a business to take action. So, to answer my opponent's question, MONEY is the incentive that will make the company agree to the terms. 2c: My opponent contends that nullifying or modifying a patent's conditions constitutes a violation thereof. This is patently untrue. The relevant definition of violate is as follows: http://www.askoxford.com... To break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement). This means that some rule in the patent must be broken. However, as I said earlier, patents have rules about who is allowed to produce the good. therefore, the only way to violate the patent is to produce the good without being first allowed to in the patent. Amending the patent to allow the government to produce the drug would not constitute a violation of the patent, since there is no rule against such action. Let's examine Yraelz's analogy, since I have the space. Step 1: Make a rule that no one can touch me. To be consistent, I'll write it on piece of paper. Step 2: Change the rule, my girlfriend can now touch me. Change the "No one can touch me" to "No one can touch me except my girlfriend." Step 3: My girlfriend touches me (I won't go into the details here). If any rule has been broken, it is the rule I forged in step 1, which is no longer part of the 'patent.' Further, this rule is broken at step 3, not step 2. _______________ My opponent then claims that the government is just in violating the patent, even when they don't have to. He claims that it dos not matter that there is a much more just approach. However, I contend that it is only just for said government to pursue the better choice. If I was given a choice to save either Sam Jackson or Sam Jackson AND Chuck Norris, for instance, then it would be unjust for me to just save Sam. The reason it would be unjust is that there was a better decision to make. My opponent has offered no reasoning for why something is just even if there is a more just choice. Just as I would not be justified in allowing Chuck to die in the above scenario, the government would not be justified in violating the patent when they did not have to. The lives are saved either way, so everything else is equal. _______________ My opponent then brings up the 'dropped' arguments. I addressed in round 1 that I had made all these arguments irrelevant, since in light of points 1 or 2, they mean absolutely nothing. It was not necessary for me to address them in round 1, since my round 1 arguments made them irrelevant. However, I will address my opponent's claims about me conceding the points (even though I explicitly stated "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.") Either way, here we go: My opponent states that I "concede that Sub-S needs the Malaria drugs." This is untrue. They do not have them now, so thy obviously do not 'need them.' What I do concede is that Malaria drugs in sub-S Africa would save lives. He claims that I "concede that utilitarianism and life over profit are the highest values in this round." I do not. I put forward that justice is the ultimate paradigm. However, just as my opponent has no way to back his paradigm up, I cannot back mine up. They are points of view. Thus, it would have been meaningless for me to include a paradigm in round 1 (since point 1 and point 2 don't care what the paradigm is). I'm only including it now to clear up the confusion my opponent has about me 'dropping' his points. In fact, to avoid the 'injustice' many face of being born into poverty, we should allow people too poor to afford medicine to die. By giving people free medicine, we're just making a people even weaker. Natural selection should be allowed to do its job. Next, he claims that I concede that he has correctly analyzed the resolution. However, I am not required to respond to such points. Consider this: Debate: Cheese is delicious Pro: "All I have to do it show that ice cream is awesome, and I win. Ice cream is awesome, and here's why." Con: "Cheese is not delicious, here's why." Con has conceptually won the above debate. He has successfully argued his side of the resolution. That's just what I'm here to do. I'm not here to argue about whether or not my opponent has reading comprehension skills. I'm here to argue against the resolution. I could care less how my opponent analyzes the resolution. Me not responding to it does not constitute me conceding that he's right. 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. I'll let him figure out the rest, and with it, what he is required to do next round. Recap: I have defended point 2. I have argued that all other things the same, committing an injustice when it could be avoided is unjustified.