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

As for order, I will go rebuttal/enforcement, voter issues. .. -->I very well could go line for line against my opponents points, but my goal for this round is not to rebuttal all of his points, but to simply prove the resolution true. Which brings me to what is justified? Defined from dictionary. com, justified is "to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done. " Therefore I offer the following example to show how violation of pharmaceutical patents is justified. Example: We'll use my opponents example of diabetes. Two of my good friends have diabetes from a cause not of their own. It was inherited and no prudent means could have stopped that. Let's say a man patents the use of something that can cure their disease. 10 years later, the government discovers that this very thing is capable of curing diabetes, but the patent holder won't sell the use of it for any less than 500 billion dollars (greedy man). Would you allow the people of the world continue with diabetes until a settlement is reached? (CON) OR. .. Would you "violate" the patent and cure this horrible disease and THEN reach a settlement? Both groups of people would eventually get what they wanted and both groups would be happy. This supports BOTH values and BOTH criterion's and shows how this action is JUSTIFIED. I would like you to also extend this example by simply replacing the word "diabetes" with ANY disease. This just shows the the public's health should not always be in the hands of a patent holder and that a government needs to take action where action is due. .. This leads me to voter issues. 1. Example Simply just extend my example as to HOW government violation is justified when there are public health concerns. 2. Values The values of this round are most definitely won on the PRO side. Public welfare is obviously better on the PRO side as the public health concerns have the best chance to be eliminated when the patents that prevent elimination are dealt with. People are due good health and they get it best when the jerks who want a million dollars for something that costs 10 cents are dealt with. This leads me into Natural Rights (his value). .. this also is better weighed on the PRO side. Extend his "18 million" with Type II diabetes. I'd like to weigh this against the one patent holder. Both have the natural right of either their patent or their health but on the PRO side, the more important natural right (of good health) is achieved and the natural right of your patent has a good chance of eventually being achieved. The eventual is where the violation is upheld (as there was some confusion in his last speech), but the eventual is also where we do EVENTUALLY have a chance of getting everyone their natural right. BUT, when the public's health is at risk and there's a jerk out there holding back, it is justified to violate their patent, which is the prudent thing to do. 3. Criterion The Criterion's in this round are also flowed to the PRO side. Prudence is achieved when you do the right thing of giving 18 million people their natural right instead of just 1 (which is justified). Also you have limited government which is not achieved on the CON side because he says that both sides are satisfied (in his first speech). .. NO, both people are not satisfied, when there is a public health concern you must do what is prudent. Therefore, I urge you to remove the word "limited" and replace it with "prudent" and flow the "Prudent Government" to the PRO side by giving the most people their natural right and increasing the public welfare. This is how and why it is justified to violate a pharmaceutical patent when there is a public health concern. His last speech was simply a lot of "he was confused", so I offer this speech. .. .. . It is justified, no and's, if's or but's. .. .. it is justified, it is "to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done". .. I did not specifically refutate his points because I didn't want to play the "dropped points" game but simply the game of "prove/disprove" the resolution game. .. it is still justified and therefore I urge you to vote PRO. Thanks for this great debate!