Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Final round, Finish him! Point 1: My opponent begins by dropping his first point, this is extremely abusive to me. I expended all 8000, characters on my response last round in order to attempt to combat his points. Basically my opponent offered two points, one of them which he knew wasn't true, so that I would not be able to focus my attention fully on his real argument. This not only defeats the purpose of honest debate but also serves as a character suck for me and should be a voting issue in this round. This issue should hold just as much weight as the 2nd. Point 2: 2a. My opponent submits that, "However, this would make many people much less willing to buy it, especially people in, say, Africa. " I am not exactly sure where he is pulling this analysis from. The optimum way for the government to do this plan would be to violate the pharmaceutical patents to one actor. In other words not only could the original patent holder be able to create the drug but so could the government or a contractor. The government or contractor would then turn around and give these low cost drugs to Sub-Saharan Africa. I am not advocating for a complete removal of patents I am simply advocating for just enough exceptions to produce the drugs. Thus the only people who are going to be getting this drug low cost are those in Sub-Saharan Africa, period. Furthermore, once again I must push the point that the pharmaceutical companies are not selling the drugs to Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefor, the government or contractor giving the drugs to them does not infringe on the pharmaceutical companies profits at all! A similar situation would be like me inventing a Teracom and then marketing it to the people of earth. At which point an Alien finds me, sees my invention, and markets it to his home planet. Obviously this has no impact on myself because I would never have marketed it to the alien planet in the first place. Therefor I am being done no injustice in this situation. The same is true here. The pharmaceutical companies aren't marketing their products to Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefor turning around and re-creating their product to save lives at low costs is not actually an injustice to them. This scenario has no impact on the pharmaceuticals at all. Finally on this point, keep in mind that I am advocating for the patent violation in just one area. I'm not saying that the patent should just disappear, because it shouldn't, I am simply advocating for an exception to the patent in this one scenario. 2b. Hahaha. I submit a case where the main problem is a lack of drugs to save people. I go on to point out that this lack of drugs comes from the fact that we are dealing with impoverished nations. The impoverished nations do not have money to purchase the drugs. So my opponent decides the best way to violate the pharmaceutical patents is by giving the pharmaceuticals more money (reminder, this is what the countries are lacking). Which would work just fine except for the fact that we are not just speaking about the United States here, we are speaking of countries in general. There are going to be countries out there, Sub-Saharan African countries are good examples, that are not going to have the money to do this. Furthermore keep in mind that my opponents idea of offering tax credits only works in the home country. Finally we must remember that we are attempting to minimize costs so that the African people may live. The more money we must spend the higher chance that the cost will not be as minimized as it can be. So yes, while giving the pharmaceutical some type of compensation for their idea could be nice, it is not particularly necessary, as the pharmaceuticals are not losing anything to begin with. And for some countries it is not going to be possible, thus it is okay to violate the patent with or without the extra money thrown in. Either way is not going to hurt the company. 2c. "My opponent contends that nullifying or modifying a patent's conditions constitutes a violation thereof. " Yes. This is true, my opponent presents a relevant definition so let us examine it. Violate: To break or fail to comply with. Furthermore we might as well define break with a relevant definition. Break: 1. to dissolve or annul. 2. to infringe, ignore, or act contrary to (a law, rule, promise, etc. ): She broke her promise. So let us once again examine the scenario with commentary from myself. Step 1: I make a rule that no one can touch me. Commentary: Yay! Step 2: I modify the rule by making an exception to the rule, my girlfriend can now touch me. Commentary: This violates the original rule in the first half of the definition of violate, I am BREAKing the original rule. I am using the definitions of infringe and dissolve in this instance for break. I am infringing on the original rule, and I am dissolving a small portion of the original rule. Step 3: My girlfriend touches me. Commentary: Oh yes! This of course is a violation of the original rule in the second half of the definition of violation. I am now failing to comply with the original rule (or my girlfriend is failing, however you want to see it). I am of course doing this for a good reason, specifically because I violated the rule during step 2. Thus I no longer care about this rule. This however does not make this final violation any less relevant. If we look at the resolution it says "violation of pharmaceutical patents", the resolution is in the present tense. Thus when we do change the patent in the future, we must still concede the fact that we are violating the old patent in our current status quo. ______________ Finally I must once again state that sense the pharmaceutical company is not losing anything either way both methods are equally just. Straight up violating the patent is just as just as coming to the agreement. Either way the pharmaceutical is not hurt in the slightest. Furthermore it is apparent that my opponents picture is worse than mine. _____________ Next my opponent states, "In fact, to avoid the 'injustice' many face of being born into poverty, we should allow people too poor to afford medicine to die. By giving people free medicine, we're just making a people even weaker. Natural selection should be allowed to do its job. " Which makes absolutely no sense, consider that every 1st world country out there uses medicine abundantly and is far better off than Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus the impact of medicine on natural selection is rather limited. Furthermore my opponent should be voted against simply for suggesting the genocide of Malarian Sub-S Africans. Finally my opponent states he does not have to argue my interpretation of the resolution. This line of thought is rather flawed, as the resolution is going to be subjective to both of us and it is up to us to come up with an agreeance on the topic we are debating. For instance if the topic said "They are good" and I felt "They" refereed to monkeys while my opponent felt "They" referred to ice cream we would have a difficult time debating. My opponent of course offers an example which is quite clearly a straw man. Pro: "All I have to do it show that ice cream is awesome, and I win. Ice cream is awesome, and here's why. " Con: "Cheese is not delicious, here's why. " (At which point Con wins) This of course makes sense in the scenario but I did not offer an off topic argument in the first place. My resolutional analysis was very much involved with the resolution, therefor my opponent has conceded the interp. Finally I would ask that no new arguments from my opponent be considered in the final round. I ask this because I have no chance to respond to such arguments. Sub-S has many public health concerns, but the 900,000 malaria concerns can be solved for now.