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

For this round, it may seem a bit jumbled as we will start where we left off on our opponents' case and then move onto our defense. R2 will be assimilated into another one of our contentions due to the similarities. ===Rebuttals=== R3: Supply and Demand This was not refuted in our last round as we ran out of characters, as previously stated, but we shall address it this round. It may be true that this price raise would lead to such a competitiveness in a free market, BUT this isn't the status quo. As we have previously shown in R2, Turing has a market monopoly and the government has increased the harm here by adding so much red tape to the point where there cannot be any other company that enters here even though there is plenty of alternatives available. Turing made this decision knowing that there was no alternative and with this drug being so needed, people would be forced to buy this drug. With this being the status quo, we would have to see that you should flow this argument into our favor since there is no alternatives currently. Pro's free market has failed us in this field. Quoting Airmax is irrelevant to the debate. He is another DDO user and who has stated that he shouldn't be quoted, shouldn't have such a statement given. Please throw this out of the debate. ===Defense=== C1: Stakeholder My opponent should be the one concerned here as the insurance question is another free market issue. Here the government intervenes in the insurance industry, which then transitions it to a mixed system. Any argument here on insurance should be flown to Con's side in this debate due to it going against Pro's ethics. We have even stated that it would be lowered for hospitals, so this is another thing that is irrelevant, but we can see that we are still seeing harms here as it affects the average Americans and as shown before on how 22% of the US needs it and so many are unable to get the treatment for it. My opponent has failed to address or even acknowledge our impacts, please extend these across the board. People do have self-ownership, but we are arguing what should be done. The business is what should be operated on behalf of the public, since the free market, as purposed by our opponents, has failed to do its job. People have self-autonomy, but my opponent has yet to actually argue anything on how a business should have this. As a result, this attack is repelled as my opponent has yet to make an actual argument on behalf of the business, but has only argued about people. C2: Market Monopoly Our opponents' response is questionable. We did nothing here that seems to be atopical, but rather argued that since they were aware of the market monopoly and still did this knowing they would get away with it. Not to mention that this argument is one that is an attack on Our Opponents’ Free Market argument, so this argument is highly relevant to the debate at hand. We understand that the issue here is with the government regulations caused a problem, but it is our opponent's themselves that argued that their "Free Market" was the aspect that allowed Turing to raise their prices. These government regulations were a huge portion and part in their factoring that allowed them to do this. If these regulations weren't there then they would have elected to not do this. If Turing had been a wheat company and did this with wheat. Then people would go to other wheat sources and Turing would go under, but this isn't wheat. This is medicine. If the regulations fell away, if they didn't raise their prices...if. If is an issue here and our opponents are only begging the question here. We are arguing about what had occurred, not some different situation as even our opponents stated similar a few paragraphs above. Our opponents' flip-flop results in the negation of both of their arguments. We could play this blame game all day long, but we have to see that the system is something that influenced their decision and with our opponent using the market system as a means of ethics, this would apply directly to their case. Please extend this across. C3: Ethic of Care This was completely justified and many of the harms were cross applied from other arguments. The impacts where also not even addressed and such a drop should result in our victory on impact calc. Our opponent's don't even go and refute this argument and simply brush it aside. Please extend this argument across the board as this wasn't anywhere close to even a proper rebuttal of this argument as they simply brushed it off. ===Rebuttals=== R1: Capitalism and Freedom. This isn't a strawman but a legitament argument. Our opponents are simply trying to defame us here. We have to remember that there were instances in US and human history where slaves where considered unhuman and how we were doing them a favor. Slaves were even considered property and we can simply see here that this completely fits in their definition of capitalism as it allows them to protect property rights and if slaves are considered property, as they were, it would not only be permitted, but entirely justified. As a result, our arguments stands. There are many things that can be argued on the subject of Capitalism, but that is for another debate as people can go all day on the differences, pros and cons. Our opponent's rebuttal on Chile is subpar. Simply by sticking your head in the sand and ignoring how capitalism has led to these terrible things is a selective bias. This argument easily sticks and our opponents' argument should be flown to our side of the debate. We can argue on the issues of what if all day long, but the issue is that in the status quo it was unethical and our opponent's ethics are, by themselves unethical. Do keep in mind that our opponents did link their system of ethics to Capitalism as all one had to do is show how Capitalism was unethical, then our opponents' entire case is moot. With that we hand things off to our opponents once more for the final round.