Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision to substantially increase the price of Daraprim was ethical

This was a good debate and with this final round we see it shall come to a close. ===Rebutalls===R3: Supply and DemandOur opponents have yet to actual go forth and show for any reason as to why Turing raised this. Excusing the payments of dividends as an excuse to do such an event shows more of a failure on part of Turing. You could argue that innovation would occur, but their fail and even concede to the fact that Turing has a government created monopoly on the market. There are other solutions where they could be able to interact with assuming such a monopoly wouldn't exist, but since a monopoly on the market exists and it is impossible for other firms to enter the market due to different types of barriers to entry. As a result of the sole existance of the fact Turing has a market monopoly, we must automatically flow this argument over to the side of Con since the free market and any opperations Pro's side speaks of, can not opperate under this system. ===Defense=== C1: StakeholderHere our opponents, once again, fail to actually refute any of our actual arguments. They completely drop the aspect of Utilitarianism and have completely failed to carry forth any argument against the Stakeholder theory. We have to see that for these reasons here you should vote Con due to the dropping of the ethical theories here and with the fact that Util. and Stakeholder were both dropped and were the ethical values in this debate, then this can only be rectified by a ballot in Negation. Our opponent fails to even address any of our harms in this debate, so please extend them across. Our opponent's failed to show that there is nothing wrong with the issue, but instead they have attempted to brush aside the topic only to try and bypass it. Please extend this argument. Do keep in mind that it is our opponent's who had first brought up insurance and this by itself shows the hypocracy in our opponents' arguments. Our opponent's never show how they give away medicine for free, please throw that out of the debate. Our opponents here are trying to put words in our mouths. Was it not our opponents who stated that the current US market system should be considered free market? They stated this in their R2 Opening arguments and are now trying to flip them on us. This results in the double negation of their own arguments here. We could do an argue about whether or not businesses should have the rights of people. We would make a case response to this, but doing such would be atopical at this point, so we will throw that argument out of the debate. C2: Market MonopolyIt is our opponents who are misunderstanding us here. Turing made this decision knowing about the monopoly it has and there is nothing any other company can do and there would be shrills out there to defend them. Our opponents fail to see that the free market they touted is really just a mixed system as even without government control, these monopolies prevent the other companies from entering the markets. If you look at the people who go and try to get these laws passed, it is generally the representatives of the companies who go there. Our opponents know this and try to sidestep the issue by claiming we are blaming a system, but how is that true when it is our opponents themselves going and praising the system that permitted them to do this? If we are to accept their Free Market system of ethics, then this argument by itself negates it. Our opponent's try to end here with a flawed argument. Just because something would have, doesn't mean it should have. This little ancidote should be thrown out of the debate. C3: Ethic of CareOur opponent has failed to go forth and try to refute this. They've only tried to go around it and completely ignored it. Please extend this. Even if you do not accept this, We still have the Stakeholder and Utilitarianism arguments that our opponents have completely ignored and dropped in this debate. ===Rebuttals===R1: Capitalism and FreedomThis argument against slavery is subpar. We can see this as our opponent's try to argue that people would be entitled to other's rights and this wouldn't be true as though they would be property, they would be subhuman and not have rights to begin with. Thus we can actually see here that slavery would be permissible under this system of ethics. Our opponents have yet to go and address the creation of slavery and the colonialism here in this argument and please extend these arguments across the board. My opponent seems to have a flawed idea for what Captialism is. True Capitalism, as Ayn Rand argues, is the total seperation of state and economy for the same reasons as seperation of church and state (see Ayn Rand video linked). As a result, the one of the two major people who our opponents have gone forth and sited, shown that this isn't Socialism and with Chile's actions being entirely due to the indirect actions of Milton Friedman by the Chicago boys applying his economics in Chile, they both show that Chile was true capitalism and you have no choice, but to flow this argument to our side as it is something that Friedman himself argues and supports caused such a crime against humanity. With many of our arguments dropped, we thank you and urge a ballot in Negation.