The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points

Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,764 times Debate No: 3638
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (92)
Votes (17)

 

Yraelz

Pro

I am in affirmation of the above stated topic but before I begin I would like to extend my thanks to Beem0r for accepting this debate or by the off chance he doesn't I would like to thank him for the free win.

Also I would like to convey my dejection towards the fact that at least 1 of the 8 debaters I felt for sure would be in the top 8 of this tournament will be out after this round.

Having said this, I will begin by analyzing the resolution and deciding exactly what it means.
_______________________________________________________________________________

The resolution begins with, "public health concerns" this phrase is quite clearly plural. Therefor in this debate round I will have to prove that their are at least two scenarios that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. On the other hand the opposite of this resolution and the position my opponent will have to defend is clearly, "Public health concerns do not justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents." Thus my opponent in this round is going to have to show that there is only one (singular) or that there are zero public health concerns that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Furthermore in this round I will be functioning off the paradigm that the human life holds a value that cannot be measured by means of monetary value. I will also be functioning off the value of utilitarianism which in this round will be used to convey the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
Within my definition good shall be defined as being of the greatest paradigm. Which in this case shall be the intrinsic value of human life vs. monetary value.

____________________________________________________________________________

Contention 1: Malaria.

"Malaria affects more than a billion people worldwide and kills a million -- mainly under age five -- every year, the vast majority in sub-Saharan Africa.", this being from the AFP on April 7th 2008.

In fact about 9/10ths of the Malaria victims each year are in sub-Saharan Africa. This means that approximately 900,000 deaths occur in sub-saharan africa per year because of Malaria. However these are not just any deaths these are unneeded deaths.

Specifically we will be examining the United States, a state where malaria is all but non-existent. In fact in many parts of the nation malaria has not occurred at all in the last 3 years. This eradication of Malaria was in part due to many measures by the state. Anti-mosquito spraying was of a great service, as was drainage control and the removal of mosquito breeding sites. However an equally important aspect of the eradication was more focused on the human side of the spectrum. This aspect was and is anti-malaria drugs, which prevented the disease even if a human being happened to be bit by a female mosquito carrier.

These drugs still exist today, in the United States they are primarily used to protect citizens who are leaving the country. The CDC's website actually recommends taking them before going to specific regions, http://wwwn.cdc.gov... . Africa is one of these regions.

This of course raises a question. If these drugs are so easy to come by that they can be given to an everyday traveler why exactly does this disease still exist in parts of the world? The answer is rather simple and very depressing, these drugs cost money and of course a large part of sub-Saharan Africa is currently living in immense poverty. Thus in the status quo we, as a society, are valuing a profit over the lives of 900,000 people annually.

While some companies in the status quo are taking an initiative on themselves to combat this problem without outside pressure the fact remains that close to a million people are dieing each year. This can be combated and helped by government violation of pharmaceutical patents. If the government of not only the United States but also the governments of Sub-Saharan African nations have the ability to manufacture these drugs at a cost that denies a profit margin the chances of these drugs reaching the people in need will increase. In fact, violation of pharmaceutical patents could potentially allow for governments to distribute these drugs at no cost for the simple exchange of a minor increase in taxes.

This of course has the drawback of decreasing profit for the patent owners but the saving on even one life that did not need to die far outweighs this impact.

Therefor I stand open for my opponents case.
beem0r

Con

I, too, am dejected that one of us will no longer be in the tournament after this round. With how quickly I tend to respond compared to most people, the loser of this debate may even be the first person to officially be out of the tourney.

Also, I give my gratitude to ye, Yraelz, that the opening argument wasn't an 8000 character wall of text. With that said, I will get on to my argument.

Unlike how I would ordinarily do this, I will be putting my argument before any responses to my opponent's case. The reason will become apparent.

_________________________________________
POINT 1 : The government can't violate pharmaceutical patents.
1a. Pharmaceutical patents limit who is able to produce a drug.
1b. To violate such a patent, one would have to produce said drug without being the patent holder.
1c. The government cannot, should not, and will not produce drugs.
1d. From 1b and 1c, we can draw the conclusion that the government cannot, should not, and will not violate any pharmaceutical patent.

Clarification for 1c:
The government's job is to govern. The government has no ability to produce goods, let alone drugs. Just as the government turns to defense contractors for tanks, etc, they would have to get a pharmaceutical company to produce the drugs for them. This company, if it was not the patent-holding company and the patent was still valid, would then be the one violating the patent, whereas the resolution clearly states that the government must be the one to violate the patent.

_________________________________________

I was going to leave it at that, but I decided I'd throw in another, independent argument.
_________________________________________
POINT 2 : An alternate, fairer, more effective advocacy.
2a. It is unfair to the Pharmaceutical company for the government to violate their patent.
2b. The government and the Pharmaceutical company can come to a mutual agreement, whereby they can nullify the patent or a special exception can be made for the government.
2c. If the patent is first nullified or a special exception is made for the government, then the government would no longer be able to violate the patent.
2d. This plan is more fair then Yraelz' plan, and it avoids other disadvantages.

Clarification for 2d:
Disadvantages my plan avoids: In Yraelz's scenario, the entire use of a pharmaceutical patent would become meaningless. Companies spend billions of dollars researching new drugs, and because of this, they get to be the sole producers of the drug for X years. Without the patent, the company has no incentive to research drugs, especially drugs that could potentially cure dangerous, widespread diseases. Helping people out is not a major incentive for a pharmaceutical company to do research. These companies do research because of potential profit. And when they start losing profit on drugs of this type, they simply won't bother dumping their money into research for them.
The government is no longer acting outside the law in my scenario, while it is in Yraelz's.
The burden of paying for this is now put in the right hands: that of the government, the body that's deciding to give away these drugs. If my mom needs some pills that Yraelz happens to have, I can't simply take them from him because it might save a life. I must pay him for it. It would possibly be different if I had no money to pay him for the pills, but that is not the case here. The government has enough money, and they have plenty of ways to get more money. Intellectual theft is not required on part of the government, it can simply make a mutually agreeable exchange, just like everyone else has to.

_________________________________________
So those are my two points for now. Since either of them makes the entirety of Yraelz' opening argument irrelevant, I need not respond to his argument unless these points fall. The points I have made, for now, are rebuttal enough.

This means that if I can still argue the paradigm my opponent is operating under, I can still argue any of the point about malaria, etc. However, for the time, such arguments are unnecessary, and would only bloat the debate to an unnecessary level.

Back to ye, Yraelz. Good luck, I know you'll think of something crazy.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, I will be starting with point 1, moving to point 2, and then covering dropped arguments by my opponents.

__________________________________________________________________________
Point 1: My opponent offers 4 different planks one of which has a paragraph of justification behind it. Thus I will be focusing on each sub point.

1a. "Pharmaceutical patents limit who is able to produce a drug." This is entirely true but let me expand on this a little bit. Pharmaceutical patents do not only limit who can produce the drug but through limiting who can produce the drug pharmaceutical patents dictate how much the drug is put on the market for. This of course is the fundamental problem seen in Sub-S right now, prices that are too high for the common Sub-Saharan citizen to purchase. (Keep in mind some of those citizens make less than 2 dollars per week.)

1b. Yes and no. The government could violate the patent by producing the drug, this is true. However the government could also violate the patent by making it null and then allowing another company to produce the drug.

1c. "The government cannot, should not, and will not produce drugs." This is false. Governments quite clearly can produce goods, while the United States government is not the best example because it is primarily a capitalist nation it still has nationalized some things. For instance in the United States some transportation is produced solely by the government. Furthermore education to an extent has been nationalized by the government. While the private sector does produce a vast amount of the GPA in the country government activities non-the-less do account for 12.4% of the GPA. My point is this, the United States government has the ability to produce, it can produce medicine.

However we are not just talking about the United States here, we are talking about governments in general. And other governments most certainly do produce medicine. Look at parts of Europe and Cuba, a country who's number one industry is medical tourism nationalized by the government.

Next my opponent states that if the government hired a contractor that wasn't the patent holder to produce the medicine then it would be the contractor and not the government doing the violating. This is clearly fallacious, if the government did do this then the government would null the patent before the company created the product. If the government did not do this then the company would be violating federal law, and the government would be forced to act accordingly. Thus the government can hire a contractor while simultaneously violating a pharmaceutical patent, itself.

Finally my opponent states that it is not the governments job to produce, it is the governments job to govern. I contest his theory, I believe instead that it is the governments job to solve national or global problems in a coordinated manner. If this means saving 900,000 people from certain death each and every year, so be it.

So a brief recap is in order. The government can produce drugs, the government should produce drugs in order to save lives. We are talking about every government in existence not just the United States. Even if those governments hire contractors to produce the drugs the government still must be the one to violate the patent in some way, whether this means nulling it or simply making an exception for said company.

1d. Cross apply 1a, 1b, and 1c, those three cover this point very nicely. In fact, just reread the paragraph before this one, it covers the points.

______________________________________________________________________
Point 2: My opponent once again offers 4 sub points, I will be focusing on each of them in turn. I will be showing how my opponent is going to require a substantial amount of proof to back up his opinions.

2a. "It is unfair to the Pharmaceutical company for the government to violate their patent." Is it really? Lets look once again to my example. Right now the pharmaceutical companies producing Malaria drugs are making a hypothetical x amount of money. Those same companies are not selling to Sub-Saharan Africa thus the plan is this. Governments violate the patents allowing the governments to produce those drugs at a lower cost and distribute them potentially free. Thus at the end of the day when the Sub-Saharan Africans have the drugs and 900,000 of them are no longer dieing of Malaria the companies are still going to be making x amount of money. The fact that the government violated the patent and produced drugs for a population that the companies weren't producing for in the first place has 0 affect on the products.

However I cannot stand to simply rebut this point, I must also turn it. What is even more unfair than the potential harm to pharmaceutical countries that my opponent is attempting to prove is the harm done to 900,000 people each year who were born by no choice of their own into the poorest region of the world. These people have just as much right to live as anyone who is reading this debate yet my opponent is more interested in supporting those already living with a high quality of life. Placing monetary value above the value of life is far more unfair than any injustice that could happen to a pharmaceutical company. Making an extra couple dollars for your already bulging piggy bank is not worth the death of 900,000 annually.

2b. "The government and the Pharmaceutical company can come to a mutual agreement, whereby they can nullify the patent or a special exception can be made for the government." I agree that this is a fundamentally good idea. This does not change the fact however that not every pharmaceutical company out there is going to go for this. My opponent is going to have to prove in his next round that every pharmaceutical company would be completely fine with having their patent infringed upon at no benefit to themselves. Like my opponent said in his last round,

"Helping people out is not a major incentive for a pharmaceutical company to do research."

Furthermore even if my opponent can somehow prove that these companies are fine with patent infringement this does not nullify my case, let's examine 2c.

2c. "If the patent is first nullified or a special exception is made for the government, then the government would no longer be able to violate the patent."

This is completely untrue. A nullification or special exception to an already standing patent is a violation of it. This would be like me telling everyone that they could not touch me, and then at a later date stating that my girlfriend can touch me. I violated the original ruling when I changed it. The same is true here, to change the patent in someway that differs at any point of contradiction from the original patent is a violation of the original patent.

Furthermore if the companies do outright say no OR yes to the patent violation my case will still stand. As it is still a just cause to save the 900,000 lives in face of profit. Thus the resolution is still proved true. This is simply two scenarios that are just. For instance if a bully was beating me up a just response would be to fight back, but a better response would be to run away and get a police officer. They are both JUST responses, one just happens to be better. The same is true here, both cases are JUST responses to the deaths of 900,000 people, one just happens to be better.

2d. Cross apply every point above.

_________________________________________________________________________

Finally lets examine the things my opponent has dropped.
-He concedes that Sub-S needs the Malaria drugs.
-He concedes that utilitarianism and life over profit are the highest values in this round.
-He concedes my resolutional analysis.

With that I can see nothing but a Pro vote at this point in time.
beem0r

Con

I will make this as short as I can, since my laptop is sporadically shutting off every once in a while.

_____________________
POINT 1:
My opponent has sufficiently argued against point 1. I am no longer using it. Still, I will be holding onto 1b, one of the planks my opponent argued against.

_____________________
POINT 2:
2a:
My opponent has put forth that the company would not lose any profit, since the drug would only be given away to poor areas. However, this would make many people much less willing to buy it, especially people in, say, Africa. They would attempt to get it for free themselves or find someone poor who's selling it cheaper than the company (a phenomenon that's likely to happen). There is likely to be at least a little financial loss in it for the company. But this isn't the only form of injustice the company must suffer. The fact that their patent is being violated, that their rights no longer mean anything: this would be an injustice. An injustice that is easily avoided if the government simply came to a mutual agreement with the company rather than hypocritically breaking the law (which would also give the government a bad image).
The point of 2a is that it is more fair for the two parties to come to an agreement, rather than one side (the government) deciding it can steal the other's intellectual property. Stealing is not necessary here.

My opponent also attempted to 'turn' this argument, claiming something about the unfairness of 900,000 people dying of malaria. However, this is a completely irrelevant point, since my plan avoids these deaths just as well as his. Mine also avoids government acting illegally and heavy handedly, so it is superior in this regard.

2b:
My opponent claims that companies would be unwilling to come to a mutual agreement. This makes little sense; he was just arguing that the company feels little to no financial loss from the government's production of their drug. Therefore, even a small amount of money, a small tax credit, etc. would be enough to get the company to agree to amend the terms of their patent.
The government paying for what they take is much fairer than them illegally reaping the benefits of billions of dollars for research for their own ends (which in this case is saving 900,000 lives). Remember, the lives are saved in both cases. The company would be unlikely to refuse if a reasonable amount of money was offered them, since money is what drives a business to take action.

So, to answer my opponent's question, MONEY is the incentive that will make the company agree to the terms.

2c:
My opponent contends that nullifying or modifying a patent's conditions constitutes a violation thereof. This is patently untrue.

The relevant definition of violate is as follows:
http://www.askoxford.com...
To break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).

This means that some rule in the patent must be broken. However, as I said earlier, patents have rules about who is allowed to produce the good. therefore, the only way to violate the patent is to produce the good without being first allowed to in the patent. Amending the patent to allow the government to produce the drug would not constitute a violation of the patent, since there is no rule against such action.

Let's examine Yraelz's analogy, since I have the space.

Step 1: Make a rule that no one can touch me. To be consistent, I'll write it on piece of paper.

Step 2: Change the rule, my girlfriend can now touch me. Change the "No one can touch me" to "No one can touch me except my girlfriend."

Step 3: My girlfriend touches me (I won't go into the details here).

If any rule has been broken, it is the rule I forged in step 1, which is no longer part of the 'patent.' Further, this rule is broken at step 3, not step 2.
_______________
My opponent then claims that the government is just in violating the patent, even when they don't have to. He claims that it dos not matter that there is a much more just approach. However, I contend that it is only just for said government to pursue the better choice. If I was given a choice to save either Sam Jackson or Sam Jackson AND Chuck Norris, for instance, then it would be unjust for me to just save Sam. The reason it would be unjust is that there was a better decision to make. My opponent has offered no reasoning for why something is just even if there is a more just choice. Just as I would not be justified in allowing Chuck to die in the above scenario, the government would not be justified in violating the patent when they did not have to. The lives are saved either way, so everything else is equal.
_______________
My opponent then brings up the 'dropped' arguments. I addressed in round 1 that I had made all these arguments irrelevant, since in light of points 1 or 2, they mean absolutely nothing. It was not necessary for me to address them in round 1, since my round 1 arguments made them irrelevant.

However, I will address my opponent's claims about me conceding the points (even though I explicitly stated "Since either of them makes the entirety of Yraelz' opening argument irrelevant, I need not respond to his argument unless these points fall. The points I have made, for now, are rebuttal enough.")

Either way, here we go:

My opponent states that I "concede that Sub-S needs the Malaria drugs."
This is untrue. They do not have them now, so thy obviously do not 'need them.' What I do concede is that Malaria drugs in sub-S Africa would save lives.

He claims that I "concede that utilitarianism and life over profit are the highest values in this round."
I do not. I put forward that justice is the ultimate paradigm. However, just as my opponent has no way to back his paradigm up, I cannot back mine up. They are points of view. Thus, it would have been meaningless for me to include a paradigm in round 1 (since point 1 and point 2 don't care what the paradigm is). I'm only including it now to clear up the confusion my opponent has about me 'dropping' his points. 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.

Next, he claims that I concede that he has correctly analyzed the resolution. However, I am not required to respond to such points. Consider this:

Debate: Cheese is delicious

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."

Con has conceptually won the above debate. He has successfully argued his side of the resolution.

That's just what I'm here to do. I'm not here to argue about whether or not my opponent has reading comprehension skills. I'm here to argue against the resolution. I could care less how my opponent analyzes the resolution. Me not responding to it does not constitute me conceding that he's right. However, I will say this: his resolutional analysis is wrong, and he will know it if he simply reads through it carefully. As it is, his supposed burdens for pro and con are not mutually exclusive. I'll let him figure out the rest, and with it, what he is required to do next round.

Recap: I have defended point 2. I have argued that all other things the same, committing an injustice when it could be avoided is unjustified.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

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. Vote Pro.
beem0r

Con

My opponent claims that I automatically agree with his interpretation of the resolution, even though I specifically said otherwise last round: "However, I will say this: his resolutional analysis is wrong, and he will know it if he simply reads through it carefully. As it is, his supposed burdens for pro and con are not mutually exclusive."

However, let's consider what we're faced with if I did concede his interp:

After reading this debate with no preexisting bias, a judge will either be convinced that there is one public health concern (Malaria) that justifies government violation of pharmaceutical patents, or that there are zero. Neither PRO nor CON have argued for more than one public health concern that justifies government violation of pharmaceutical patent.

According to Yraelz's interp:
PRO must show that:
"their are at least two scenarios that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents" (ignore his use of the wrong there, we know what he meant)

CON must show that:
"there is only one (singular) or that there are zero public health concerns that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents."

CON's burden of proof remains untouched. No one has argued against it; in fact, we have both been arguing for my side, Yraelz arguing for 1 public health concern (malaria) and me arguing for 0.
PRO's burden of proof, however, has been consistently argued against by CON. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof to a higher extent than my opponent, even based on his flawed analysis of the resolution. Even before my rebuttal, there is more reason to vote for CON based on the interp Yraelz claims we both agree with.

Now, if we leave fairly tale land and we see the resolution for what it actually means (based on the completely valid thinking in PRO's round 1), we see that PRO must instead show that there are at least two PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS, something he has simply failed to do. Now, we're still arguing FOR my side of the resolution, but we're also BOTH arguing AGAINST his.

With that, I will now proceed to rebutting my opponent's Round 3.

First, he claims that me dropping one of my points was abusive to him. This is ridiculous, since me dropping a point only helps him. It is not my fault, either, that he wasted so much space rebutting a point that could have been rebutted in only one paragraph.

2a:
My opponent claims that no quantity of these drugs are sold to any of sub-Saharan Africa. That seems like a claim that would require some backing, in a world where travel and overseas shipping are so widely available. The richest portion of sub-S Africa can certainly go buy some of these drugs, something they would be less willing to do if their government offered the drugs for free.

Also, my opponent dropped the point about the injustice of the government acting illegally. This is reason enough for the government to seek a mutual agreement with the patent holder.

2b:
It has already been stated in this debate that we are speaking of present tense. The impoverished nations, namely sub-Saharan Africa, do not have nationalized drug companies. In rebuttal to point 1, my opponent specified that it would be possible for certain communist countries, who have drug companies, to produce drugs. It is abusive for my opponent to all of a sudden switch away from this; point 1 would still have been valid. There are no sub-Saharan governments who can violate a Pharma patent, since none of these government produce drugs.

Further, even an impoverished nation could afford to pay a couple bucks for something of this significance. If the company stands to lose nothing or close to it, they should be fine with it, right?

2c:
My opponent accepts my definition of violate. Then, he provides us with a definition of break. However, when the Oxford dictionary uses the word break, it means break as defined in the Oxford dictionary, thus Yraelz's non-Oxford definition does not fit into the Oxford definition of violate.
http://www.askoxford.com...
Definition 4 would be the only meaningful definition here.

With that said, it is now only possible to break a law in the sense that we colloquially mean it - we have to fail to comply with the terms of the law (or patent).

Thus, there is no violation at step 2 (when the patent is changed). There is also no violation at step 3, since the original patent no longer exists in it's previous form; it has been modified.

_________________
My opponent suggests that both methods are equally just. Even if the Pharmaceutical company stands to lose nothing, it is not 'just' for one to have spent billions of dollars for something and for the other to get it for free (by means of stealing, nonetheless).
My opponent has failed to show how my plan is inferior to his.
__________________

My opponent claims that using medicine is avoiding natural selection., This is true - if we are not made to pay for our medicine. In the United States, a person does not get medicine unless they have been productive enough to get enough money to buy it. This is not abolishing natural selection. To allow sub-Saharan Africa to bypass natural selection here by being given handouts of this sort, we're in fact stopping natural selection from bringing them out of poverty. We're trapping them in poverty.
Also, I never supported genocide, as my opponent claims I did. Please ignore this Straw Man. I supported a lack of action, which would then do less children the severe injustice (as admitted by my opponent) of being born into poverty.

My opponent then moves to the resolutional analysis, which I already brought up. I agreed with the general thinking he conveyed. The thinking, which he explained, would bring us to the conclusion that he has to show multiple public health concerns that justify government violation of pharma patent, and I have to show that there are 1 or none. He in fact correctly stated my side of the resolution.

I did not have to explicitly accept or reject my opponent's analysis since it was fundamentally flawed; as we have seen, the burdens are not mutually exclusive, as they should be. Therefore, Yraelz has argued in favor of BOTH our sides of the resolution, where I have argued in favor of mine and against his.

My opponent ends with an extremely loaded statement. "Sub-S has many public health concerns, but the 900,000 malaria concerns can be solved for now."

First, he simply asserts that there are many. However, he has not argued that any of these justify government violation of pharmaceutical patent. Next, he makes a hidden assertion that each individual case of malaria is a public health concern. This is just not true. Throughout this debate, as well as colloquially, a public health concern is a disease, not a specific instance of that disease. A single instance of malaria could not possibly be a public health concern, since it is not contagious. A disease has the ability to spread, so it is a public health concern. An instance of this disease in a person cannot spread, so it is not.
My opponent didn't bother trying to back this hidden point up because he knew he could not. Either way, he has not supported it, and I have argued against it (as is my right, since it was a new point brought up last round).

For great justice, vote CON. My side of the resolution stands stronger than my opponent's.
Debate Round No. 3
92 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Yowzer. It had to end one way or another. :(
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Sorry dude. I'll try not to lose next round.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
No diggity doubt. Sure is taking them long enough, though.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
So it appears we are tied. At the very least it is going to be a split ballot. =)
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
If you actually got into the story line on FFXI it was pretty good. I mean, the actual missions were okay, but then if you got into the chains of promethia story line or the rise of the zillart one they were pretty nice. Good movie scenes also.

I won't deny that playing it on the PC with the usb extensions would be better though.

And yes, the two FFXIII's look amazing. I love the one where he is fighting all the guys with guns on the steps. UBzorz
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
FFXIII and FFXIII Versus look hot though. They're gonna be the reason I get a PS3, probably.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Unlike PS2's, however, computers don't constantly break. I've had 2 or 3 of them, they all stopped reading games that were on normal CDs and eventually just broke overall. It would probably be better to get a USB Gamepad and play it on PC. You'll get better graphics if you change some registry settings, too.

Plus, then you don't have to go about getting a network card for teh PS2.

FFXI, due to being an MMO, just didn't have the character development or good emotional manipulation, two pillars of the FF series.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
This is a close match.....
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
FFXI was so worth playing for the PS2, the controls were so easy and so user friendly. That game was horrid for the computer, controls were very difficult.

Also... I can't believe you just added FFX-2 to that list. =(
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Also, you have been challenged. Your fate is in your hands!
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 8 years ago
Partyboat
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 8 years ago
shaqdaddy34
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03