英语BP辩论反方二辩辩论稿

1、。反方二辩：Thank you,Mr.（ Ms. ）speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening!In the first part of my speech, I would like to make my rebuttal.The prop seem to thinktheyre providing extra incentives to scientists from universities and researchinstitutions, therefore increasing innovation. This is wrong. Fir

2、stly, many scientistswork for pharmaceutical companies directly . Secondly, scientists at universities andresearch institutions are paid by pharmaceutical companies to undertake research forthem. Why is this important? It means that scientists are actually harmed under thepropositions model, not hel

3、ped. When patents are removed, pharmaceuticalcompanies can no longer earn monopoly profits.Now I d like to provide my statements. For the first aspect,why we save more lives?Firstly, under our plan you can pay scientists double the bonuses they get paid andstill get the job done way below the curren

4、t cost. This is because we wonthave to pay$6-10 million a year for the CEO of the firm in question or billions in publicity. Werealso providing incentives for the same companies to research novel drugs. Ratherthan fret over prices remaining high for 20 years to make a profit were allowing thema gene

5、rous research and development-linked profit on delivery.Secondly, we have the preposterous claim that university research is funded bycorporations! The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, anindustry lobby group, estimates that private industry finances only about 43% of drug-可编辑修改

6、-。development! Our plan allows for universities and government institutions to take onmore research and even provide them with concrete benefits.Thirdly, more than 69% of those with HIV lack access to the medication to treat it.Rather than pay the current prices for that 69% for as long as they need

7、 them whatwe do is pay for them in a drastically cheaper one-off payment that would allow forgeneric copies to be made ad infinite. This way we also dont endorse current practicethat actively discourages innovation but instead create a new regime that trulyrewards it allowing everyone to benefit fro

8、m genuinely novel drugs.Fourthly, the opp has argued our plan would not encourage cheaper drugs with thesame effects to be produced. Of course not! If we create generic drugs, accessible toall why need a“new ”drug that does exactly the same? This is what happens under thestatus quo;companies creatin

9、g useless“me-too drugs”one after the other rather thanresearching into novel drugs that have something to offer. Rather than see this lack ofinnovation as a problem they are offering its solution as an argument .In addition, if companies with patents charge very high prices, that creates a marketfor

10、 cheaper drugs for that illness, so other companies can move into that market. Thismeans innovation is encouraged, there are more drugs and the price isnt an issue inthe long term. Under the props model it is necessary that generics are moreprofitable than new drugs for a company to produce, or else

11、 none of them will,instead going for the massive prize for new drugs. If generics are more popular, nonew drugs will be produced, only copies.-可编辑修改 -。For the second aspect,abolishing patents for life-saving medicines would notdecline the price of medicines.The prop have founded their case on the id

12、ea thatlots of generic producers will be able to produce drugs cheaply if patents arebypassed. However, there needs to be a massive incentive to get these drugsdeveloped in the first place. They cost up to $800 million to get to market, and thismeans huge amounts of investment are required. Not only

13、 does this investment needto be payed back, there needs to be a promise of strong profit to pay off the risk ofsuch a huge investment being unsuccessful (most drugs never go to market). Aspatents provide the ability to charge monopoly pricing, if there was no patent forlife-saving drugs there would

14、need to be an even greater incentive to stop companiesproducing non-life saving drugs instead. What this means is that whatever model theprop propose to provide these incentives, it will always be more expensive thanallowing a company to patent a product, which at least makes it as valuable as anon-life saving drug.In conclusion, if we abolish those patents,no one would continue researching anddevelop