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

My opponent's first argument is one that I have already refuted. To clarify, I shall repeat. "First off, i challenge my opponent to cite points in history where the government has directly violated it's own law for the people. The truth is it hasn't. IT HAS CHANGED LAWS." 1. Changing laws takes time. National health crises frequently deserve immediate attention. 2. The only possible change in the context of this debate is one that prevents government intervention from being a violation when it would have been otherwise, which grants the government excessive power. This change would be permanent, meaning that the government can do what once was a violation of patent law whenever it wants. This is even worse than a one-time violation of patent law. "the fact about violation of rights being temporary is actually unwarranted for my opponent. If the government wants something that they don't have they'll do anything to obtain it." This does not follow. It is unclear what this has to do with the topic. "Plus, even if there is a violation for a temporary period that can be enough to destroy corporations by violation of infringement rights." Manufacturing a patented pharmaceutical product for the sole purpose of solving a public health concern is not enough to threaten a corporation, much less destroy it. "the resolution never stated temporary violation; so that rebuttal is void" It never stated permanent, either. But we have good reason to believe that the violation is temporary. The resolution states that the violation is because of a public health concern; when the public health concern ceases to be a concern, the government will have no more reason to violate patent law. Within the context of this debate, the violation will cease once the public health concern has ended. "[Changing patent law] first takes the word of the people to put laws into action." 1. Patent law is not a matter of voting. People have no say in the law change. 2. Voting is a slow process, and the sick need medication quickly. "Or representatives of the people to make these laws apparent." The representatives changing laws would be the same ones temporarily violating laws. "And about my Obama quote...i found it necessary where as my opp.is using totally random quotes from Star Trek and dead French people who didn't even know what the word pharmaceutical meant." 'Change we can believe in' has nothing to do with my opponent's second contention, except that it has the word 'change' in it. 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is very relevant to my third contention, as my contention states that it is worth it to sacrifice the needs of the few (patent holders) in order to help the many (the public). The quip about dead French people is irrelevant. My opponent is biased against the dead, the French, and those who do not know what 'pharmaceutical' means. Each of those three things holds no bearing on the value of their words. "what is this [rebuttal to contention 3]???" After rereading my rebuttal, I see a possible point of confusion. I stated 'The point of a law is not to be followed'. What I meant was 'The point of a law is not that it should be followed'; I did NOT mean 'The point of a law is to be disobeyed'. I hope that clarifies it. My opponent's third contention is circular: if the point of a law is to be followed, then it has no purpose outside of itself, and is therefore utterly useless. "Majority of pharmaceuticals in their development for mainstream products that benefit the people in times of need are given major grants by the government. This gives the government partial ownership and distribution rights for times of social disruption. It's with this knowledge that the government in the first place WON"T HAVE TO violate any such laws whatsoever to help the people in times of struggle." 1. This claim is not to be believed until a source is provided. 2. It is clear enough that the resolution implies that violation of patent law is necessary for the sake of public health. "In any type of debate simply stating arguments as circular holds no place in any debate." Unless they actually are circular. "Direct violation of the pharmaceutical from the government is like someone taking your hard work away from you." Hardly. The patent holder still owns the rights to the patent. After the health crisis is over, the patent holder goes back to being the exclusive producer. No money is lost. "[V]iolation of any sort whether by the government or by any private investor will almost always put the patented material into jeopardy." Evidence please. "How many times in history has it been when other companies cross the line to gain an advantage over the initial patent holder." 1. Based on the evidence that my opponent has put forward, zero. 2. That's why the government puts them in their place when they do. "Because of the strategy of changing one small modification in the patented material then patenting the product as their own." This is not any easier when the government violates a patent, and is in fact completely unrelated to this debate. "About the scenario. Sure the government gives me my house back but now it's a trailer with two broken windows. a family of mice and a hellish bathroom. While my neighbor has somehow taken my tv and other appliances and built a mansion." I fail to see how this is an applicable scenario. "The majority will always outweigh the majority in any terms." I'm not sure I know what this means. "Thus the true meaning of this example is true." By definition, yes. The paragraph that the two above quotes are from is completely incoherent, and I cannot respond to it as I do not understand it. *** I look forward to the final round of this debate.