Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: Peninsula CS | Judge: Serena Lu
Beery 20
Under thisthe universe and all beings in it…. ~manifest a~ Will to Power. This is understood as nature's inherent drive to perpetually spread out its power over the whole. That is, all living things are in a constant power struggle amongst each other, in order to spread out and strengthen their power.In this regard, the metaphysical interpretation has been labeled as a negative expression of the Will to Power, whereby the Will is directed externally upon other objects and persons.
Nietzsche conceives of justice as a balance, a settlement concerning the claims powers have on each other. For Nietzsche, the origin of justice rests on the prerequisite of approximately equal strength between powers (HH 92, 93). Such strength is to be measured according to the particular "power position ~Machtstellung~" someone holds, that is the value or worth his power has for others.6 Nietzsche thinks that the "equilibrium of powers" is the basis of justice.
Prefer because Bowdon 21: Good and evil are a creation of humankind: "There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena." It is our natural wish to be more, have more, do more. It is the people who are altruistically pursuing some pure and objective absolute (whether in religion or philosophy) that are the deluded ones. There is no universal morality; the ancient Romans called gladiators, violent killers, glorious and the Buddha forbade the taking of any life, there is no single superior morality my opponent can defend. Prefer the universal will to power whose only requirements are balance with other wills to achieve justice.
Servier International Research Foundation 20: The innovation process is complex, lengthy and expensive. Only 1 in 10,000 molecules becomes a drug and enters the market. The average cost of developing a drug candidate is nearly one billion euros. Because of these significant investments, patent protection is vital to ensure a return on investment for companies and researchers and enable creation of new drugs. If a drug patent is granted for 20 years, it protects exclusivity for only 8 years because drugs require an average of 12 years of research before market entry.
Mahdavi, 17 (Elle Mahdavi, 5-26-2017, accessed on 9-15-2021, California Management Review, "Patents and the Pharmaceutical Industry", https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2017/05/patents-and-pharmaceuticals/)
California Management Review is a premier academic management journal published at UC Berkeley
by
AND
redoubled RandD efforts in developed countries to spur needed innovations).45
Use patents offer unique financial incentives: Rai 14
If a new use ~{for an old molecule~} proves to be therapeutically successful, FDA will approve the molecule only for that use in a "use patent" Use patents offer robust financial incentives. .Moreover, because skinny labeling by a generic competitor is possible only in the context of an FDA-approved use that is no longer under patent protection, a use patent precludes skinny labeling and protects the developer of the original patent from generic entry. In fact, a competitor that wishes to use the same molecule will have to conduct clinical trials to show novel effectiveness. Thus, a use patent for a rescued drug functions like a product patent. Indeed, even if use patents do not prove as valuable as product patents, they are likely to be sufficient to drive development of rescued drugs, which have already been ~{certified safe~} in trials.Howev In many respects, the developer of the entirely dif erent use will be in a position similar to that of a "me-too" drug developer—that is, the developer of a molecule that has the same mechanism of action and use as the originator molecule but manages to avoid the originator's patent. T e availability of me-too competition has not prevented f rms from engaging in more pioneering discovery. To the contrary, the incidence of me-too drugs appears to have declined in recent years, perhaps because of price constraints that insurance f rms can impose when they are able to choose between multiple competing drugs in the same class (5). T us, a use patent for a rescued drug functions like a product patent (6). Indeed, even if use patents do not prove as valuable as product patents, they are likely to be suf - cient to drive development of rescued drugs, which have already been derisked to some extent in early-phase clinical trials for safety. Critics of evergreening should also have no cause for complaint. Because no medical use was established for the molecule, it is logically impossible for the new, patented use to be a trivial extension of a prior use. Although this strategy for use patenting appears to have been relatively rare in the past—according to one analysis,
Seymore 20 Vanderbilt Law Review (https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2919andcontext=vlr )
New uses for aspirin are patentable. Indeed, the quest to find new uses
AND
outcomes for neglected diseases or for patients who otherwise have limited treatment options.