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

Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents. I will begin by rebutting my opponent's contentions, and will then defend my own. "violation- an infringement of the rules in sports that is less serious than a foul and usually involves technicalities of play" This definition is perhaps acceptable, but it refers to sports. It has not been adequately applied to the context of this debate. My opponent's definition b is not applicable, either. I don't think it matters too much, since both debaters seem to understand what "violation" means. But I will offer my own definition just to be as clear as possible. Violation: A disobeying of a rule or law, in this case patent law. In this case, a violation of patent law constitutes manufacturing a drug or pharmaceutical good without permission from the holder of the patent. "Contention 1: Government violation of an individuals intellectual rights increases the violation of future rights". This is an unwarranted extrapolation. The government violates intellectual rights only temporarily, and only for the good of the nation. My opponent's speculation about totalitarian governments is unwarranted, as there is no reason to believe that government will violate any rights other than a specific type of intellectual rights for only a temporary period. "Contention 2: Even in times of health concern there's been no need for a VIOLATION of patent laws simply a change. 'CHANGE, WE CAN BELIEVE IN'- Barack Obama" That quote has nothing to do with the contention and is utterly pointless. Changing a law is even worse than violating it. When the patent laws are changed in the way my opponent desires, intellectual property right will be truly shattered. Changing a law to suit the government reeks of totalitarianism. And a law change is not temporary. My opponent's proposal to change patent laws is far worse than a mere temporary violation. "Contention 3: The whole point of laws in an equal society is so that everyone follows them." The point of a law is not to be followed: this purpose is purely circular, and proves nothing outside of itself. No additional refutation is necessary. "Apart from using a useless quote by Kant who didn't even know what the hell a patent was and what a pharmaceutical patent was for that matter my opps. statement is completely false." This is not a real rebuttal. It says nothing. "The definition of the spirit of patents is SO THAT THEY DON'T GET VIOLATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED." This is a circular definition, and is therefore invalid. My point was that patents protect the intellectual property of the inventor against potential competition, and that government violation in the case of public health concerns is not a misuse of the inventor's intellectual property; the inventor is still safe. "Next you say that government violation doesn't jeopardize a patent rights? Hmmm.. well if it didn't then what would be the need for government intervention in the first place?" My opponent seems to imply that the very purpose of government violation is to jeopardize patent rights. The purpose is in fact to protect the nation from a potential health crisis. "[E]ven in times of public health concern the federal government may distribute the material the patented material to other companies to maximize product output. Those other companies always will want to steal the material." But if they do, it is illegal and they will be put in their place. Rights will then be restored to the original patent holder. The inventor is safe. "My neighbor is dying so the government get's to take away my house (because it's my property) and sell it to pay for his operation. Even though I didn't do anything at all. The government just took away my right because he was dying." This scenario is inapplicable. The following scenario is more applicable: Ten thousand of my neighbors are dying. The government takes away my house and sells it to pay for their operations. After the operations, the government gives me my house back. Those ten thousand neighbors are more valuable than the temporary usage of my house. "Now apart from using a quote from a totally fictional character i just found out the dark truth about Spock. He was a raving racist as well as an insane Supremacist." Irrelevant. The quote was a convenient and eloquent embodiment of the Utilitarian ideal. My opponent's reverse appeal to authority holds no weight. My opponent's analogy about white people killing black people is inapplicable. The white people have no need to kill the black people. The analogy does not fit with my original statement in any way. My opponent suggests that we allow tens or hundreds of thousands of people to grow sick and die simply because he refuses to temporarily violate an individual's patent. It is clear that this is an unreasonable standpoint.