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

Thanks to Con! PRO's CASEOV1Con says that he was attempting to convey that "the FDA's way of doing things is working right now. " Yet, he has utterly failed to prove this. In fact, his source and his arguments (in R2 and R3) only say WHAT the FDA is doing, these arguments don't tell us that what the FDA is doing is effective, efficient, or just. In other words, Con has done a splendid job of showing what is going on in the status quo, but he has not shown us that what is going on in the status quo should continue to occur. So again, Con is simply asking us to accept the status quo at face value, without offering any evidence about how effective it is or how it could possibly be better than alternatives like privatizing drugs testing. It is still circular, it is still unsubstantiated, and it is still illogical. Moreover, Con is shifting the goal posts. First, he says "if it really is outside 'governments legitimate scope of authority,' then why is it already here. " Then he says, "What I meant to put across was that the FDA's way of doing things is working right now. " He is intentionally altering the trajectory of his argumentsafter the fact in orderto obviate the damage I inflicted on his case. To use the soccer metaphor, "after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt;" that is precisely what Con is doing here and it should not be allowed. His initial argument was that what is occuring in the status quo is within a government's legitimate scope; it was not about the effectiveness of the FDA. He should be compelled to defend the former, not the latter. OV2Pro concedes that this resolution is not U. S. -specific. RebuttalsP1Con states: "So, if it is beyond the government legitimate scope of authority, then why are they doing it now? " Again, Con is employing circular logic. He is essentially saying that the status quo is good, because it is the status quo. This line of reasoning can be dismissed as logically fallacious. P2I have several objections to this. Firstly, Con misunderstands the notion of autonomy. Autonomy is, in essence, moral freedom--the ability to do what you want so long as you do not directly harm others. So, Con is totally incorrect when he suggests the notion of autonomy permits rape, murder, robbery, and so forth--though drug use and suicide would be permitted as they do not harm others. People must be free, as self-owners, to exercise absolute property rights over themselves. This self-ownership thus allows them to make choices that would imperil themselves, so long as it did not harm others. I am not arguing for anarchy, just libertarianism. Secondly, people can by lethal drugs, but they must be made aware that such drugs are lethal, as with cigarettes. It is perfectly fine for companies to sell lethal products so long as they are labeled as such and so long as people are aware of the dnager. Why is this? As I explained early, consuming a lethal substance is a DIRECT harm, and if a company sells such a product, claiming that it is not lethal,and you unknowingly consume it, your body and health have been jeopardized. This is a violation of your self-ownership, since your property (i. e. yourself) as been damaged by another actor. Consequently, safety tests must be performed to assess drugs safety levels, and if a drug is deemed unsafe, it should be clearly labeled as such if it goes to market. Thirdly, why shouldn't corporations do this safety testing, as Con suggests? Because ultimately it is a government's job to protect people against direct harms to their property. That is why the government was formed, as per Nozick's theories. Certainly, companies could also test for safety, but the government should do testing as well because it falls within the scope of what government should be doing--as what a government is responsible for. Fourthly, all of these are new arguments by Con. New arguments are unfair because they only give me 1 round to respond to everything else in the debate, PLUS the new arguments, which puts disproportionate pressure on me. Therefore, all of these arguments by Con should be summarily dismissed and not evaluated. P3Again, Con is making new arguments. He DROPPED--I repeat: DROPPED--these points last round. It is not fair for him to address them this late in the debate. It is his job to respond to everything within the allotted 8,000 characters. We both have the same character limits, so he is at no disadvantage. It is not my fault that herationed his characters poorly. Please ignore all of Con's new arguments as they are abusive. But even if you do want to evaluate Con's abusive new arguments (which merits a conduct violation, IMHO), they ae still faulty. Con asks why government should be restrained by human dignity and self-ownership. Con, it seems, has missed the point. Human dignity is the root of human moral worth, and to respect human dignity, we must extend each person self-ownership. Violations of self-ownership are thus immoral and should not occur; they are violations of rights, and thus legitimately constrain governments. P4Con says that the status quo has "a proven track record that works. " Con has not presented any evidence as to the efficacy of the status quo, and therefore his claim is totally unproven and unsubstantiated within the context of this debate. Con then strawmans my argument to claim that I am blowing off the lives of people. That is not what I am doing; merely, I am claiming that people are free to make informed choices. If a drug was not tested for effectiveness and they chose to take it, they can hardly complain when it fails to work. But, moreover, companies will want their drugs to be effective or they will garner bad reputations. It is unlikely that too many ineffective drugs will actually be sold. I would now like to remind everyone of something Con has dropped: "If (a) Self-Ownership exists--conceded by Con in P2--and (b) Self-ownership constrains governments--conceded by Con in P3--then all I need to show is (c) that Self-ownership prevents governments from testing for effectiveness. I achieve (c) in three different, separate ways: (1) preventing government interference in the pharmaceutical industry, (2) allowing companies and their owners to exercise their property rights to sell what they make sans government interference, and (3) ensuring average people's property rights are respected by not denying them the right to buy certain products even if they may be ineffective. " I cannot seriously believe that Con has suggested that the government cannot be bribed. Certainly, government officials all around the world are bribed all the time. Here in the U. S. the Bob McDonald case is an instance of bribery. In India, several recent scandals have occurred regarding bribery. In China, the pharmaceutical giant GSK has been implicated in bribing government officials. The government also doesn't halways ave access to more materials than a company. Poor or ineffective governments, like Uganda for instance, are going to have far fewer resources than many large companies the world over. And, as I have already argued, companies are apt to be more effective and efficient due to profit motivations. I don't need links to back up everything I say, CDB. Logic is a warrant unto itself. LinksCon DROPS his objections to my links. CON's CASECP/PermBribery is non-unique. As for my source, yes, it is talking about health care, but I was referencing the market principle, which is the same. The source described how profit motives incentivize companies to be better that governments, and that same logic is applicable to this resolution. TurnCon DROPS that more drug research will actually occur in my world. REVIEWCon's case is riddled with logical fallacies (circular logic, goalpost shifting, etc. )