Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public

Very interesting rebuttals! Sorry I was so short and didn't address many arguments. I was busy and running out of time, and the character limit was killing me, so I will know take the time to address every single argument. Good luck.Rebuttal 1:This whole overview is trying to attack me and say I have committed circular logic. What I meant to put across was that the FDA's way of doing things is working right now. So, why should we fix it? We hear the famous saying "If it and broken, don't fix it." and we think this is a literal object that is running in perfect order. This may also count for he FDA, as it has been working to help keep us safe. Look at everything they kept us safe from ingesting into our body. (1) I didn't mean to apply circular logic, as I did to bring into attention that the FDA's way of doing things is working. So, why should we fix something that isn't broken.Rebuttal 2:I get that. However, I feel the way the FDA is monitoring the drugs in the USA is excellent. So, I feel that the safety policies should apply to the rest of the world.Rebuttal 3:Let me just highlight what I said last round that the FDA is in a branch of government. So, if it is beyond the government legitimate scope of authority, then why are they doing it now? That was the case I wanted to highlight.Rebuttal 4:Now that you explain it a little bit better, I think I will refute this. Autonomy is to make an un-biased decision. So, your basically saying if a business makes an un-biased decision to release a sugar pill instead of a heart pill, it is okay. If someone kills someone, it is okay. This basically says anything is okay as long as it is an un-biased decision from an individual. Which means if a person decides to rob, kill, rape, do drugs, commit suicide, we shouldn't be mad, sad, or angry because they made an un-biased decision. You then connect this to their ideas and fruits of their labor. What you are basically saying that, if they invent a pill that harms humans, it is their idea and they should be free to do what they please with it. Then you connect it to drug testing, saying it doesn't matter if it's effective, but it does matter if the government tests if it's safe. First off, this would interfere with the idea of autonomy. If they decided to put harmful ingredients into the pill, then they made an un-biased decision. What I mean is, if we follow Pro's version of autonomy, then even if it isn't safe, the government can't interfere because it was an un-biased decision to put the ingredients into the pill. Second off, you stated that the corporations themselves should test for effectiveness, however, I may turn the question back on you. Why can't the corporations test for safety? The main point I'm trying to advocate is,Who is really un-biased? The corporation putting out the pill for profit, or the government that isn't making a dime off of it. I think the decision is clear.I want you to answer this question. What is the purpose of the FDA? Who is going to be testing these drugs? You? Me? The cooperation?Rebuttal 5:Sorry! Again, the character limit killed me!First off, I want you to explain to me and everyone reading why it should restrain the government and drug testing. Second off, This is an idea. Explain to me why this is correct.What I meant by my previous example, is that many things would be allowed that aren't know. For example, if we follow Pro's logic, prostitution and drugs would be allowed. Anything would go as long as the decision is un-biased.You may be wondering why I keep repeating this. Basically, it is to show his reasoning to be faulty. Thus, the deas not rational to put into effect.Rebuttal 6:I get that, but this law that we have now has a proven track record that it works. Yours however I have shown to be faulty and un-reasonable.Pro concedes one of my main points there. If the pill is in-effective, people could die. He simply just blows it off as a risk like it is nothing at all. Pro states that as a "self owner", it should be their choice to test for efficacy. However, I may again turn this back on Pro and ask if it should be the corporation's choice to test for safety. We could go back and forth. However, I suggest that if this drug is going to effect the government and its people, then the government should test for both safety and effectiveness because they have no bias or vested interest.Pro then concedes another point, that if the drugs don't work, then the public should just grin and bear it and wait for the next drug. All he has to say is that this is acceptable. I didn't drop those points. I ran out of characters.Here are some reasons.1. The government can't be bribed.2. The government has access to more materials because they are funded by the government.3. You can be sure your drugs are safe and effective using the government's testing phase.You offer no link backing you up.Rebuttal 7:You just said it there. Companies are profit motivated, so if they invest a lot of money into a pill, they may bribe the companies to give them a false test result. Oh, and your source is talking about free market health care. (2)Not drugs.Here is the synopsis of your ONLY sources for this round."In this paper I argue that the free-market provision of health care is both practical and morally sound, and is superior in both respects to its provision by the State. The State provision of health care will be inefficient compared to its free-market alternative. It will thus provide less health care to persons for the same amount of expenditure, and so save fewer lives and alleviate less suffering for two reasons: state actors have no incentive to husband their resources effectively, and that in a non-market setting, special interest groups can capture resources through lobbying, perverting them away from their efficient allocation. Given these considerations of efficiency a utilitarian should morally prefer the free-market provision of health care to its State-based rival. Furthermore, even if one is not a utilitarian, the free-market provision of health care will be more morally sound than its State-based alternative because it will likely better respect the autonomy of persons, and will better refrain from imposing values upon persons. With these points in hand, I address two prominent objections to a free market system of health care."Where does it say anything about drug testing? This is my opponent's link.Rebuttal 8:First off, there are no links that support your statement. The "lengthy process of government testing" makes sure we get it right the first time. Please start adding reliable links.Ladies and gentleman, I proved:1. The FDA has success the way it is run right now.2. My opponent uses little links, and when he does, they are either philosophical, or not related to the subject.3. My opponent NEVER backs up his cases with cold, hard facts.4. I backed up my cases.5. I proved the government is doing a great job testing drugs.6. I proved that his form of drug testing will put people's lives in jeopardy, as conceded by Pro himself.The question I want you readers to consider is,Do you want a method that has a proven track record of it excelling in drug testing?Or,A method with no track record, no facts supporting it, faulty reasoning with autonomy, profit motivated, and causing people to die? (As conceded by Pro) I think the answer is clear! Vote Con!1. http://www.fda.gov...2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...