The Instigator
ESocialBookworm
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Dennybug
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

AAN-Tourney: This house would legalize the sale of organs.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ESocialBookworm
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,409 times Debate No: 59910
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (104)
Votes (2)

 

ESocialBookworm

Pro

Resolution:

This house would legalize the sale of organs.

Definition of terms:

Legalize- “Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law” [1]

Sale- “the act of selling; specifically : the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price” [2]

Organ- “A group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions” [3]


[1]- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3]- http://www.biology-online.org...


Structure of debate:

R1- acceptance *only*
R2- arguments & contentions
R3- rebuttals and refutations
R4- counter-rebuttals and refutations


This debate is for the Adopt-A-Noob programme. I wish my opponent, dennybug, the best of luck, lots of fun, and that we both learn from this debate!


Due to real life occurrences, both parties had problems posting their round three arguments. This threw off the structure of the debate. As such, all rounds previously posted will just be copied and pasted here from the previous debate and no new arguments will be added into these rounds. The previous debate shall be deleted my airmax1227.

---

Dennybug

Con

I accept!

Thank you pro for taking the time to structure this debate



===========================================================

Before we begin I'd like to point out that the BoP lies on my opponent since she is the one opting for the legalization of something illegal.


over to pro.
Debate Round No. 1
ESocialBookworm

Pro


Thanks Dennybug for accepting! I look forward to an interesting debate!



Prelude



Con has begun by attempting to shift the goalposts and shift the burden of proof to me. The main part of this resolution is “legalize.” The BOP, however, is shared so I must provide a case as to why organ sales should be legal, whilst he must provide reasons as to why they shouldn't be. We're discussing a "should" statement, and thus a normative resolution, meaning both of us bear equal burdens of proof.



What is the sale of organs?


The sale of organs, as pointed out by the definitions given in round one, is the act of selling a group of tissues (body parts) that perform a specific function or group of functions.




Now, why is the sale of organs important?



C1) Saves lives


More than 10,000 people in the UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting list.[1] In fact, “An average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can’t take place because of the shortage of donated organs.”[2] The number of organs needed exceeds the number available for transplants. These 1000 people that die could have been on the waitlist for years, because of lack of organs, or the blood type needed etc. This number is also not completely accurate because it excludes the figures for patients denied organ transplants because of habits.


If we were to allow the sale of organs, those willing to sell their organs would help save some, if not the majority of those 1000 patients!



C2) Easier access to organs- available & affordable


Paying for donors, would guarantee a greater supply. With a greater supply for the demand, prices can be lowered. Therefore, organs would be both more easily available and affordable.


With an increase in supply, or a rightward/upward shift in the supply curve, prices, ceteris paribus, go down.



“Since the number of kidneys available at a reasonable price would be far more than needed to close the gap between the demand and supply of kidneys, there would no longer be any significant waiting time to get a kidney transplant. The number of people on dialysis would decline dramatically, and deaths due to long waits for a transplant would essentially disappear.” [3]



In Iran, the sale of organs is illegal. It is the only place in the world like this. The number of deaths resulting from a shortage of organs is significantly less, if not null.



C5) Incentive to give up organs


If people know they can get financial incentives for giving up their organs, they will be more likely to provide a supply.


This may even help some people who are in need of finances.



C6) Close the black market


Levy Izhak Rosenbaum pled guilty in federal court to the crime of facilitating illegal kidney transplants. [4]



Jail is a way of protecting the public from dangerous people, other times it's used to set an example and create social standards and it is also used as a form of punishment….Jails should have a positive outcome for society and for the individual who has found themselves in a life of crime. Education, rehabilitation and social care should be compulsory for offenders and the jail system should be divided up into specialist groups for different types of offenders.”~ Leonard White[6]



The question remains- Do these doctors and surgeons deserve to be in jail? Though committing a “crime,” what were the effects on their “victims?” How should they be reformed? Should they sit back and watch innocent people die, when they have the ability to save them?



[Rosenbaum’s] lawyers argue that his law-breaking was benevolent: "The transplants were successful and the donors and recipients are now leading full and healthy lives."[5] Does this man then belong in jail? Should he be punished for saving these lives?



“In Japan, for the right price, you can buy livers and kidneys harvested from executed Chinese prisoners. Three years ago in India, police broke up an organ ring that had taken as many as 500 kidneys from poor laborers. The World Health Organization estimates that the black market accounts for 20 percent of kidney transplants worldwide. Everywhere from Latin America to the former Soviet Republics, from the Philippines to South Africa, a huge network has emerged typified by threats, coercion, intimidation, extortion, and shoddy surgeries.” [7]


Transplant surgeon Nadley Hakim at St. Mary's Hospital in London pointed out that "this [illegal Black Market] trade is going on anyway, why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is done safely [under proper supervision by surgeons], the donor will not suffer."[8] Also, innocent people who just want to help save lives won’t risk getting themselves thrown into jail.



C7) Morality



Keeping the sale of organs illegal would mean that someone who engages in consensual, open commerce would go to jail and thus is punished for a victimless crime, instead of resources being used for “real” crimes, like murder. “Organ scarcity continues to prevail, leading to inequitable therapeutic dispensation; escalating costs; trade; crime; and premature death.”[9] Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because ‘‘morality’’ does not allow them to have access to the organs. Therefore, it's immoral to legislate against the sale of organs.


The truly decent route would be to allow people to withhold or give their organs freely, especially upon death, even if in exchange for money. Thousands of lives would be saved. Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both, with horribly unfortunate consequences, just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety.”- Anthony Gregory[10] The Pro of lives being saved outweighs the con of people exchanging their organs just for money.


The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is “an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" [the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property] is inherently illegitimate.”[11] The right of self-ownership is implied freedom of action in the absence of aggression. NAP therefore justifies the abolition of assault, fraud, pollution and most importantly, victimless crimes.



In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores issues regarding children's rights in terms of self-ownership and contract. These include support for a woman's right to abortion, condemnation of parents showing aggression towards children, and opposition to the state forcing parents to care for children. ... He asserted that parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract in what Rothbard suggests will be a "flourishing free market in children". He believes that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces, while "superficially monstrous", will benefit "everyone" involved in the market: "the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing."[12]



Likewise, our organs are our possessions and the property of the donors and as such, they should do with it what they wish, especially if it is for the cause of a “victimless crime.” These donors would give permission if they wish to sell their organs, not be forced.


How can we deny that someone not give up their possessions?



C8) The government is not legitimate to make anything illegal.



Con needs to justify that the government has the right to make the sale of organs illegal. Everyone is entitled to “freedom of choice.” If someone chooses to do drugs, it’s their decision. If someone chooses to sell their organs, it’s their decision. Who is the government to stand in their way?



Elliot Spitzer, Attorney General, and later governor, was believed by investigators to have paid up $80,000 for prostitutes over a period of several years. “Spitzer first drew the attention of federal investigators when his bank reported suspicious money transfers, which initially led investigators to believe that Spitzer may have been hiding bribe proceeds. The investigation of the governor led to the discovery of the prostitution ring after which he obviously resigned.”[13] [14]


Prostitution was illegal at the time. If people like Elliot Spitzer are allowed to be heads of states and working in the government, how are they legitimate to make anything illegal?


If my opponent wishes to say that this is not apparent for every government identity, then he must prove that they do what is best for the country all the time, and not partake in illegal activities.


In the rural Prophetstown, Illinois, 16 teenagers were arrested on the 7th of June, 2014. Four of those teens were arrested for illegal consumption of alcohol by minors. [15] These adolescents now have these violations of the law on their permanent record, tarnishing their reputation and lessening their chances of getting into good professions, all because of the law stating what age alcohol consumption is allowed. With or without the law, adolescents are going to do it anyways, and they should if they want to. After all, it’s their choice what they wish to do to themselves. The government, therefore, by having this law, caused these teenagers their reputations and have ruined their lives.


Con needs to prove that the government exists and that the pros of the actions they do outweigh the cons. Also, how can a government impose such a law, if morality is subjective?



---


Sources:


[1]- http://tinyurl.com...



[2]- organdonor.gov



[3]- http://tinyurl.com...


[4]- http://tinyurl.com...


[5,7,8,10]- http://tinyurl.com...


[6]- http://tinyurl.com...


[9]- http://tinyurl.com...


[11]- http://tinyurl.com...


[12]- http://tinyurl.com...


[13]- http://tinyurl.com...


[14]- Video


[15]- http://tinyurl.com...


Dennybug

Con

Nice work Pro,


I will begin to build my case shortly; before we begin I’d like to assert a few things.


My case will be a considerable amount smaller than my opponents however I strongly believe that the validity of my arguments exceeds that of my opponents greatly. And I will demonstrate this in my next round where I refute her arguments. I ask that you carefully consider each of our contentions with logical reasoning and not by the size of them. Thank you.


Here’s a list of organs which can be successfully transferred[1]


-Eyes/Corneas


-Lungs


-Heart and Heart valves


-Liver


-Kidneys


-Intestines


-Pancreas


-Femoral + Saphenous Veins


-Skin


-Bone


-Tendons




Contentions –



C1”Exploits the poor”



Organ harvesting is a serious exploitation of impoverished people, whose bodily organs become market commodities to prolong the lives of the wealthy few. With legalized and illegal organ selling the only people interested in selling kidneys will be poor people who are desperate for money.



[2]Mohammed Saharul Islam, is a man in Bangladesh who was in an economical dilemma because he couldn’t pay back multiple microcredit loans. These collateral-free loans with an average size of $50, give villagers a chance to start small businesses such as chicken farms or food stands.


Because of his dilemma and pressure from debt collectors, Islam sold one of his kidneys to escape his debt. Islam now suffers daily because of the procedure and is unable to perform physically strenuous tasks including his work. His family has to take care of him. So, in the long run he has become a financial liability to his family because of the extra care he requires from the procedure.





With legalized organ selling, corporate companies will instantly begin to target rural areas and advertise organ selling as a quick way to get rich to impoverished people troubled by financial debts and other financial troubles. This claim can be supported by the video I’ve linked and the article in source 2.



Furthermore, in Bangladesh a patriarchal society where arranged marriages often occur, husband’s will often encourage their wives to sell off organs such as kidneys or parts of a liver in order to help him pay off a financial debt he may have [2]


With such a practice becoming legal, many impoverished families will encourage their children or spouses to also sell their organs so the rest of the family can benefit. Such a law along with the marketing, will make the poor who are unwilling to pawn parts of themselves will look selfish and inconsiderate.




C2 “Priority > Money”



For my next contention I’ll try and explain how through the passing of a law like this, the rich will get priorities over the needy thus making legal organ trafficking undoubtedly immoral.



The way that the transplant candidate list works is that you’re examined to see how badly you need an organ transplant. The higher the score, the higher on the list you’ll be, simple and logical. If you get increasingly sick you’ll be moved up on the list. Thus maximizing the efficiency of distribution for available organs.



However, with a law like this being passed organs will be auctioned off to the highest bidder thus prioritizing the rich over the needy.



Allow me to paint a picture of the immorality a law like this would ensue. (This is not an actual circumstance nor is it an event which has actually taken place, this is merely to be used as a metaphor to illustrate my point)



We have two patients who are in need of a lung transplant, one, a 18 year old boy who has been hospitalized due to his Bronchiectasis which developed during his childhood years. And two, an older gentlemen suffering from Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency. Which he contracted from many years of smoking. [5]



Now, the 18 year old has a higher score on the waiting list, implying that under normal circumstances he will be the one to receive the organ. However, with a law like this the one who will get the lung will be the older gentleman because he is more financially capable of purchasing an organ. His lesser priority of the lung will have nothing to do with if he gets it or not. The only factor that will affect who gets the lung is who can pay more. This concept is highly immoral which puts materialistic wealth before the priority of needier people.


With the organ donation system organs go to the neediest people instead of the wealthiest people.







C3 “No one will donate anymore”



My third and last contention is that with the implication of this law, the organ donation system will collapse and be completely replaced by the organ market system.



It is logically justifiable to make the assumption that those willing to donate an organ will prefer to do so with compensation. For example, If I love two of my relatives equally and both of them need yard work done, so I can only help one. And one of them is willing to pay. It is only logical that I choose to go work for the one who will compensate me.



This same principle can be applied to organ donation. You might be wondering why this is even a point? That it’s good people will get paid for their donations? This is not the case. When you evaluate how the distribution will work under a system like this it becomes clear that corporations buying organs will of course look for the maximum amount of profit they can and not consider the priority of sick people in need of transplants.



In my previous contention I make a point how a system like this will become undoubtedly immoral putting people’s materialistic wealth before their needs. In a system like this it is only logical to assume that thousands of needier and more eligible sick people will die because organs are being bought by wealthier less needy people.








https://www.youtube.com.........



Sources:


[1] http://www.donatelifeny.org.........


[2] http://msutoday.msu.edu.........


[3] http://www.medicinenet.com.........


[4]http://www.davita.com.........'s-it-like-to-live-with-one-kidney?/e/4899


[5] http://www.emoryhealthcare.org.........;

Debate Round No. 2
ESocialBookworm

Pro


Thanks Con!


Prelude


My opponent has not contested, and therefore has conceded, that the burden of proof is in fact shared. I’m also hoping that my opponent was not attacking my case by insinuating that I merely engaged in verbal diarrhoea. Moreover, our judges are more than qualified to discern quality from quantity.



Rebuttals



R1) Exploits the poor


As I said before, millions of people are suffering, not because the organs do not exist, but because ‘‘morality’’ or “exploitation of the poor” does not allow them to have access to the organs.


According to the USDHS, about 123, 183 people are currently waiting for an organ, and about 18 die each day on average [1]. One organ save up to 8 lives [1].


Also, with an increase in supply, or a rightward/upward shift in the supply curve, prices, ceteris paribus, go down. Therefore more people would be able afford them.


An organ is cheaper than imminent death from a wait list that is too long.



R2) "Islam sold one of his kidneys to escape his debt…because of the extra care he requires from the procedure."


This can happen as a result of organ doning as well. Moreover, with an established system in place, after the sale of organs is legalized, we can put in procedures to test beforehand and screen people who are willing to sell their organs to ensure it is safe.


Moreover, my opponent misrepresents my position. His use of the word “exploit” is mendacious. Exploit means “to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage”[2] I’d like to inquire from my opponent: who’d being exploited? Who is exploiting whom?



The sale of organs will be a voluntary transaction. Within an economy, suppliers are willing to supply goods at a certain price, and people will buy goods at that price. There may be negotiation and bidding, but at the end of the day, by making these organs available, everyone is better off. The people selling the organs benefit financially, and organs are made available. Why are we then preventing it? Should we then ban the sale of food because some people can’t afford it and it won’t be “fair?” “The concept of human dignity does not demand that people should be forced to die a premature death where an illness can be cured nor that people who donate organs should die of hunger and their families be left to starve.”[3]


Moreover, the organs that will be sold belong to the sellers. It is their property and as such, they should do with it as they please.



R3) Corporate Marketing


This is an unwieldy, unsourced, unsubstantiated assumption and an appeal to consequentialism, which Con cannot prove. Then he falsely assumes that people in "impoverished areas" have the correct or healthy organs and would be marketed to for supply. Impoverished people tend to be unhealthy. Who wants an impoverished kidney when you can have a healthy one? If a business gets a reputation for that, which would be inevitable due to the information age, it’s ruined.


Next, Con's attacking marketing, not organ sales. He hasn't made a case against organ sales.


Also, wouldn’t this form of targeting occur even with a black market? Maybe the marketing wouldn't be as well-known, but it quite likely still occurs, and it's even worse because:


(1) there's no regulation of it.


(2) there's no accountability because there's no free market.



In a free market economy, if a business does these types of spurious things he's talking about, people will find out and it’'ll go out of business. That's compounded with lawsuits and government fines and the threat of jail-time. However, in a situation where the only way desperate patients can attain an organ is the black market, people will be less concerned about the quality, or cost or treatment of them.



R4) Concerning the Bangladesh example,


It’s difficult for Con to establish causation so he should give a first-hand account.


I tried to view Con’s source to determine its validity. Unfortunately, I can’t find the quote and as many of Con’s sources are not opening correctly, I await his clarification.



Con’s argument in a syllogism:


P1) If (x) law will be abused in (y) country, (x) law shouldn't exist.


P2) (x) law will be abused in (y) country.


C1) Therefore, (x) law shouldn't exist.



This is a flawed syllogism because literally any law or stipulation can be abused or misused. Foreign aid is often abused, but that doesn't mean that we should abolish all foreign aid. People depend on it.


The problem with Con’s argument is that he assumes that "if (x) could conceivably, in one example, give rise to (y) problem, it should be abolished." This isn't adequate reasoning for keeping something illegal. It only presents a conceivable problem that we could address with adequate policy.


The black market just makes this situation worse, whereas a free market would be better and safer, as said before. Under a proper system, free market businesses would be forced to be safe and sell properly-functioning organs.



R5) Image of the Poor


Con cannot prove causation and is acting off a mere assumption. If one thinks that something makes you look "selfish and inconsiderate," should it be outlawed? Should we outlaw two-piece swimsuits, even shopping, if I say they look "selfish and inconsiderate?" This isn't an adequate criterion, and thus the contention falls.


Also, as pointed out before, the black market being less effective outweighs this point.



R6) The rich will get priorities over the needy



I already stated why this is not immoral. I stated in round one, why the prevention of the legalization of organ sales is actually immoral.


As said before, by legalizing the sale of organs, the number of organs on the market increases. According to the supply curve, the price will drop if the supply increases, thereby making organs more affordable.


Just because (x) policy may benefit (y) group, even more than (z) group, that doesn't mean that (z) group doesn't benefit. For example, free trade. (y) country may not benefit as much as (z) country from trade, but it still benefits. In the case of a small country, it actually captures virtually all of the benefits from trade because it's in a position in which to gain more, and thus it acquires additional utility from its gains than a larger country would.


Also, Con hasn't proven that, on balance, the rich will benefit more. He's only making assertions. As for trafficking, he hasn’t demonstrated causation; that would, however, occur under a black market.



R7) Organs being auctioned off to the highest bidder prioritizes the rich over the needy.


Iran currently is the only place that allows the sales of organs. With the legalization in other countries, systems can be put in place to establish a proper market. As said before, by economic laws: where there is


an increase in supply will reduce scarcity and, ceteris paribus, decrease the price.



Con only asserts that this will take place in an auction system and that there is, in some way, a higher demand for organs among rich people. Aren't rich people healthier than poor people? Also, an increase in supply reduces the costs by reducing scarcity, meaning that this would be affordable to poor people. Not to mention, markets are eclectic creatures. If poor people demanded organs, markets would adjust and lower prices to accommodate those people. People selling organs want to profit, so of course there would be a market for people of lesser means. But the argument that "poverty exists" does not even remotely address the point.



The organs, as I said before, would be much more expensive under a black market, and there would be NO way for people to seek legal recourse.



R8) Profit over People


My opponent relies on bare assertions to fulfil his arguments. As said before, with an increase in supply, the prices will drop, making it easier to afford. He doesn’t contest this.


R9) Eclipsing Organ Donations


1. There is no way to prove this, as there will still be kind-hearted people who would be willing to donate.


2. Right now, there is a lack of available organs, resulting in unnecessary deaths. With organ sales, we'll be able to save more lives! The pros of saving these lives outweigh the con of having a system in place where there is a lack of organs and few people live!



People who currently give their organs, without financial benefits, are doing so out of altruism -- out of love for a family, or friend, or another human being. They're not being paid for it, but are inconveniencing themselves and paying a personal cost to benefit someone else. Do you, Con, think, people would literally abandon any altruistic tendencies they may have had?



Organs have to match e.g. bloodtype. By increasing the supply you're also increasing variety. Even in that case, the price would decline because there would be multiple organs compatible with, say, blood type A. People would literally die if they can't access the right kind of compatible organ, and all you're doing this making it known, thus expanding access, knowledge, and affordability.


Con provides no evidence that society en masse would drop organ doning. His likening of a live-saving organ to yardwork trivilizes the vital role of organ transplants.



R10) Maximization of profit


Con insinuates that firms maximize revenue when prices are as high as possible. This is incorrect. Firms maximize revenue when the marginal cost equals marginal revenue. When you increase the supply of something, you decrease its costs because your reduced its scarcity. You reduced the costs in the factor markets -- there are more organs, meaning that costs of inventory are down -- and therefore allow businesses to lower their prices in order to sell more. When prices fall, more people are willing and able to buy things.



Conclusion


I have refuted Con’s arguments, and proven that he is arguing based off assertions, not facts. The economics and morality arguments I have presented have gone uncontested. For that reason, Vote Pro.



Sources:


[1]- http://tinyurl.com...


[2]- http://tinyurl.com...


[3]- http://tinyurl.com...



Dennybug

Con


C1) Saves lives



My opponent makes the point that this legalization will increase supply and thus greatly increase the amount of lives saved.


More than 10,000 people in the UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting list.[1] In fact, “An average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can’t take place because of the shortage of donated organs.”[2] The number of organs needed exceeds the number available for transplants.


If we were to allow the sale of organs, those willing to sell their organs would help save some, if not the majority of those 1000 patients!


This legalization will also deteriorate the health of the working lower class which will be the main sellers of organs. Their health and lifestyles will be seriously affected because they will no longer be able to complete strenuous Physical activity and thus rendering them unable to work. So this would increase the amount of poverty significantly.


Furthermore, why should other people be responsible for one’s own health problems? By paying people for organs you’re ultimately making their life worse since the money will not last while their kidney would have kept them healthy.



C2) Easier Access to organs – Available and affordable



Paying for donors, would guarantee a greater supply. With a greater supply for the demand, prices can be lowered. Therefore, organs would be both more easily available and affordable.


This does not benefit the poor who are being exploited at all, with the decrease in prices this means that the poor who want to sell their organs for money will make less money than they would if they engaged in an illegal organ trade. This only benefits the rich class who will lose even less money from a legalization of this nature.


In Iran, the sale of organs is illegal. It is the only place in the world like this. The number of deaths resulting from a shortage of organs is significantly less, if not null.


This argument makes no sense, I’ll ask my opponent to clarify what she means.



C5) Incentive to give up organs (note my opponent made no C3&4)



If people know they can get financial incentives for giving up their organs, they will be more likely to provide a supply.


This may even help some people who are in need of finances.



This is exactly the problem, this is formally referred to as exploitation of the poor. Ask yourself, is it fair to give someone who is desperate for money an incentive to sell a part of themselves? They will quickly burn through the money they receive and ultimately go back to how they were unable to work do to their health conditions.


This is only ultimately benefitting rich people, since this becomes a trade it will be about maximizing profit. Not saving lives which is what organ donation is about.




C6) Close the black market


My Opponent makes the point that legalization would stop the illegal organ sales. And that People who want to help save lives don’t go to prison anymore.


The question remains- Do these doctors and surgeons deserve to be in jail? Though committing a “crime,” what were the effects on their “victims?” How should they be reformed? Should they sit back and watch innocent people die, when they have the ability to save them?


Absolutely, I ask all judges to view my opponents 4th source. From which I quote the following:


Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark McCarren said Rosenbaum engaged in the practice for up to a decade and made millions by exploiting desperate recipients and paying donors paltry sums.


"The defendant has attempted to portray himself as the `Robin Hood' of kidneys," McCarren said. "There is only one thing that his story has in common with Robin Hood, and that is, it is fiction."


This argument completely supports my own contentions made in my argument. Against the trade of organs.


trade is going on anyway, why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is done safely [under proper supervision by surgeons], the donor will not suffer."[8] Also, innocent people who just want to help save lives won’t risk getting themselves thrown into jail.


Exactly, the trade is going on. Legalization would create a platform for the rich to completely manipulate the poor. With legalization there will be mass advertising and encouragement for corporations to sell your organs to get money. My opponent says “Innocent people who just want to help saves lives wont get in trouble” This is highly fallacious as organ donation is 100% legal if you’re healthy. The only incentive is money. So the correct phrasing of this argument would be “People who just want to make money off of peoples organs wont risk getting thrown in jail” My opponents previous source 4 clearly demonstrates the injustice of this trade.





C7) Morality


My opponent’s argument stated briefly is that “Organs are our possessions; the law is stopping people from giving up their possessions.”



Keeping the sale of organs illegal would mean that someone who engages in consensual, open commerce would go to jail and thus is punished for a victimless crime, instead of resources being used for “real” crimes, like murder.


Now, my opponent argues from opinion rather than objective fact. Commerce is regulated by the government which has every right to do so. She implies that organ traders shouldn’t be punished since they are doing a civil service rather than an injustice.



Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because ‘‘morality’’ does not allow them to have access to the organs. Therefore, it's immoral to legislate against the sale of organs.


This argument implies two things, that the availability of something gives people the right to buy it. And that being denied the opportunity to trade something is immoral. It’s hardly a sound argument. I would like to remind everyone that this debate is about the SALE of organs not the RECEIPT of organs.


How can we deny that someone not give up their possessions?


Donation of an organ is perfectly legal, this not only helps save lives but makes sure that the needy are looked after before the rich. The denial is not in giving up your organs. The denial is in trading organs; since there are three parts and not just the buyer who is suffering.


The Seller (Poor People)


The Middle Man (Corporations)


The Buyer (The suffering)





C8) The government is not legitimate to make anything illegal.



My opponent’s argument in a nutshell is the following:


P1: The government creates laws.


P2: The Government breaks said laws.


C1: We shouldn’t follow those laws because the government doesn’t.



Now, this mode of thinking really doesn’t make a lot of sense and I’ll explain why in just a moment. My opponent’s resolution is the following “This house would legalize the sale of organs” legalize being the key word. My opponent attacks government and yet opts for legislation, which is regulated by the very governments she attacks. It looks like a concession to a fallacious argument. There cannot be legalization without Illegality.


Who is the government to stand in their way? The government has no right to make anything Illegal



The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." [1]


Now, the government as my opponent disagrees with has every right to impose illegality. This is called the Commerce Clause, Written in the constitution and for good reasons.


The government is also a normative function in society; my opponent cannot attack its existence/legitimacy and expect me to waste my time proving the existence of government when this debate is about legalization, a governmental concept and application.




Sources & Conclusion :



I have refuted all points made by my opponent and eagerly await her response.




[-] http://en.wikipedia.org...



[-] http://www.relativelyinteresting.com...



[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ESocialBookworm

Pro

Great round Con!


BOP Analysis

In R2 and R3, Con has completely dropped my BOP analysis. Extend it.

Rebuttals

C1) Saves lives

Con fails to establish causation for any of his claims, either that the lower class will be the main sellers or organs or that this will deteriorate health or poverty significantly. In fact, I’ve provided adequate refutations of these in previous rounds, so I will cross-apply those. Moreover, screening will be done to ensure that donors are suitable to give up their kidneys, once an established system is set up.

Con asserts that this system would make sellers responsible for their customer’s health problems. He provides no proof, of course, and fails to acknowledge that via the system we have, where about 60% of healthcare spending is conducted by the government and premiums rise as uninsured people are left with no choice but to go to the emergency rooms.[1] However, this point of his is non-topical. Con clearly doesn’t understand the point I was making about a market. In a market, there must be consideration on both sides. The patients get the organ and a chance to survive. The donors get the financial payment that they want. The ‘kidney,’ as Con said, or any other organ could keep the person healthy but this is not the only consideration. Moreover, these donors are not going to be ‘responsible’ for someone else’s health problems. They have a choice in this matter. It is a business contract- Person X gives Person Y an organ and in return, gets paid for it. Person X is not being held responsible. Being held responsible entails “having the job or duty of dealing with or taking care of something or someone” [2] Person X does not have to give up their organs, nor is he doing anyone a favour. He’ benefitting. Since there is mutual benefiting, no one is being made to have ‘responsibility’ for anyone else’s actions.

C2) Easier Access to organs – Available and affordable

Con concedes my point that easier access to organs will lead to a fall in prices per supply and demand. However, he then stipulates that this will harm poor people - the organ suppliers. However, this hinges on the assumption that poor people will comprise the majority of sellers, not buyers: as I pointed out earlier, people with declining health tend to be poorer. If anything, wealthier people who tend to be healthier will lose out.

Con then brings up the black market, but drops the point that a legalized system is safer, while conceding it’s cheaper. To sell in a black market, there must be demand. Why would someone demand a dangerous, more expensive black-market organ sale when there’s a legal, safe, and cheaper option, with no compensation for mistreatment and poor service? In a free market, such businesses would tarnish their reputation and won’t get sales.

Therefore, the poor are not being ‘exploited’ as Con mendaciously misuses the term.

With respect to Iran, the sentence should read, “In Iran the sale of organs is legal.” It is one of the only place like this, and the number of deaths from lack of organs is much lower.“Iran (with a low deceased-donor rate) that has the highest living-donor rate in the world—23 per 1m.”[3]


C5) Incentive to give up organs

Con asks, if it is fair for someone desperate to be made to sell their organs, as they will quickly use the money, and their health will deteriorate.

1) They have the choice to sell their organs for the financial aid or not. They are not being forced and have a right to their bodily autonomy.

2) Is it fair to prohibit a system where both parties benefits and lives are saved because of Con’s baseless assumptions of what would happen?

3) If they burn out the money, they got monetary consideration and should have used it wisely.

Con misuses the term ‘exploit.’ This is a sale, where both parties shall benefit. Con’s point seems to be that people can make bad decisions - he doesn’t expound on this- and therefore we should prohibit organ sales. The point is non-topical: he fails to establish causation, or why this bears out his point. People naturally can make bad decisions. What else shall we ban under that logic?

C6) Close the black market

I’d like to point my opponent to this quote-

“There are no victims here," said Rachel Warshower, … "The donors are happy and the recipients are happy; Izhak Rosenbaum is not the monster the media has made him out to be." [4]

An unjust law is no law at all’- This quote from St. Augustine, later repeated by Martin Luther King, Jr. justifies that the sale of organs should be legalized. People have a right to freedom of choice. If they wish to sell their organs, and someone helps them remove it, this is a victimless crime.

Again, I’ve already explained how in a black market system, there is more manipulation than an established, safe free market system, overlooked by the relevant authorities and medical personnel. With the possibility of lawsuits and the threat of jail time, corporations will be forced to provide adequate treatment to stakeholders.

Con says, “People who just want to make money off of peoples organs won’t risk getting thrown in jail”

Con, what do doctors do on a regular day? They save lives. What do they do it for? To make money, to be able to take care of themselves and possibly their families. This is the same situation! The doctors that will remove the organs benefit from both knowing they help save lives and financially. Since doctors have to be paid as an incentive for their work, are we going to prevent them from doing their job? Or maybe pharmacists, since they provide medication but at a cost? We don’t throw people in jail for pursuing their self-interest economically, but we do -- and can -- if they break the law, which we can’t say for a black market.

Con asserts that organ donations are legal for health people. This doesn’t at all address the resolution. How many healthy people donate organs? ‘According to the USDHS, about 123, 183 people are currently waiting for an organ.’[5] If the incentive of money is offered, people will be more willing to donate! Plus, ‘One organ save up to 8 lives![5]


C7) Morality

Con stated, that I ‘[argued] from opinion rather than objective fact, but, he has yet to prove why indeed the government has ‘every right to prevent a business agreement.’

It is a fact that our organs belong to us, and as we are allowed do with our possessions as we please, we should be allowed to sell our organs.

Organ traders shouldn’t be punished since they are doing a civil service rather than an injustice. It is a victimless crime since there’s consent from both parties and for a good cause.

Con misinterprets my point as meaning that availability if something gives people the right to buy it and straw-manned that being denied something is immoral. I never said this. Reiterating, the sale of organs will help save lives and is a consensual act between the buyer and seller. This debate is on the sale of organs, or one’s personal property!

Con states that organ donation ensures the needy are looked after the rich. Is that fair? Should Con not be arguing that people who need the organs are looked after first regardless of wealth?

Moreover, this shall be, as stated previously, a business transaction, where stakeholders have freedom of choice, where everyone benefits.

C8) The government is not legitimate to make anything illegal.

My opponent strawmans my points with respect to government. I did not argue for no government.. I questioned its ability to illegalize substances or activities -- particularly victimless crimes when hypocritical politicians themselves are breaking such laws, e.g., Spitzer, a point which Con completely drops. There are a myriad of political and illegal scandals that continue to this day, be it unconstitutional NSA spying [6] or unauthorized drone warfare. As a result of reduction plans, 70,000 children would lose access to preschool because of the mandatory 5 percent cuts.[7] The government is corrupt, giving out giant subsidies to oil companies[8] and cutting benefits to poor people -- so the government is doing what Con baselessly claims organ sales would do, yet he trusts the government to be the arbiter of morality!

My opponent cites the Commerce Clause as the authority for the government to illegalize. However, this is an oversimplification of my argument. The government COULD in fact make organ sales illegal; the question boils down to whether it SHOULD or whether it would be morally justified for the government, which wields a monopoly on force, to interject on people acting peacefully.

A cheater could lecture someone else on the merits of fidelity because they have a right to freedom of speech. However, the person doesn’t have authority of moral high ground, contextually to say such a thing and would be a hypocrite for doing so. Con may argue -baselessly, of course- that this policy would harm the poor. However, the government and politicians actively attack and defame poor people at the behest of special interests on a regular basis, fuelled by lust for power and money and enabled by several Supreme Court decisions allowing for unlimited sums of money in politics, which led to the de-facto legalization of bribery and quid-pro-quo, under-the-table dealings. The crux of my argument was completely evaded and straw-manned by Con.

Conclusion:

I’ve rebuilt my contentions and have not dropped any. It is clear that the sale of organs should be legalized as the pros of saved lives and from the sales outweigh the assertive, incorrect, unsourced claims that the needy will not benefit.

Also, Con, Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source. Please verify your R2 sources.

Sources:

[1]- http://tinyurl.com...

[2]-http://tinyurl.com...

[3]- http://tinyurl.com...

[4]-http://tinyurl.com...

[5]- http://tinyurl.com...

[6]-http://tinyurl.com...

[7]- http://tinyurl.com...

[8]-http://tinyurl.com...



Over to Con! Thanks for an excellent debate!

Dennybug

Con

Thank you pro for having this debate with me although we did go through numerous bumps on the way. May the best debator win.


In this round I shall post my rebuttals and conclusion. My opponents refutations will be italic and underlined, while my rebuttals will be bold.

I will also be ignoring some of Pro's refutations due to the character limit and also if I feel they are completely irrelevant to this debate.

R1) Exploits the poor

As I said before, millions of people are suffering, not because the organs do not exist, but because ‘‘morality’’ or “exploitation of the poor” does not allow them to have access to the organs.


Now My opponent simply dismisses the rights of the poor, saying that the needs of the wealthy outweighs the priority scale which I provided during this argument.

Not only will this decrease the price of organs and in turn exploiting sellers for less money than deserved. But people who are unable to afford organs will no longer be on a priority list but on a bidders list. This is unethical and my opponent has failed to refute it.


R2) An organ is cheaper than imminent death from a wait list that is too long.

Moreover, my opponent misrepresents my position. His use of the word “exploit” is mendacious. Exploit means “to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage”[2] I’d like to inquire from my opponent: who’d being exploited? Who is exploiting whom?

The people being exploited are the poor who are obliged to sell their organs to pay off their debts as it will be marketed as a quick way to get rich and out of trouble. As well as people who are unable afford organs. My opponent may argue that it becomes cheaper, howerver there will still be needier people who's needs wont mean anything in a corporate market world.

The sale of organs will be a voluntary transaction. Within an economy, suppliers are willing to supply goods at a certain price, and people will buy goods at that price. There may be negotiation and bidding, but at the end of the day, by making these organs available, everyone is better off. The people selling the organs benefit financially, and organs are made available. Why are we then preventing it? Should we then ban the sale of food because some people can’t afford it and it won’t be “fair?” “The concept of human dignity does not demand that people should be forced to die a premature death where an illness can be cured nor that people who donate organs should die of hunger and their families be left to starve.”[3]

My opponent makes a poor analogy to the organ market being equivalent to the food market. Food can be grown and harvested, It is not eaten or traded at the physical expense of other human beings. This is a very fallacious analogy and I don't have the character limit to disprove it in full detail.

R3) Corporate Marketing

This is an unwieldy, unsourced, unsubstantiated assumption and an appeal to consequentialism, which Con cannot prove. Then he falsely assumes that people in "impoverished areas" have the correct or healthy organs and would be marketed to for supply. Impoverished people tend to be unhealthy. Who wants an impoverished kidney when you can have a healthy one? If a business gets a reputation for that, which would be inevitable due to the information age, it’s ruined.

My opponent has stated herself that the sellers of kidneys would be the one's who need are convinced by the money incentive. These people would most likely be impoverished. I did not make a claim that all poor people have healthy kidneys and my opponent has not proven that all impoverished people have unhealthy kidneys.

My argument is purely about the corporate marketting of this would aim at impoverished people and would unfairly force them into making a transaction so they can get out of financial troubles.


Also, wouldn’t this form of targeting occur even with a black market? Maybe the marketing wouldn't be as well-known, but it quite likely still occurs, and it's even worse because:


My opponent questions my argument then uses it against me. Yes, the black market absolutely uses this method and it is clearly unethical. I fail to see how this is a positive contention for my opponent. These organ transactions are also highly illegal and are not condoned.

R4) Concerning the Bangladesh example,


Con’s argument in a syllogism:



P1) If (x) law will be abused in (y) country, (x) law shouldn't exist.


P2) (x) law will be abused in (y) country.


C1) Therefore, (x) law shouldn't exist.





This is a flawed syllogism because literally any law or stipulation can be abused or misused. Foreign aid is often abused, but that doesn't mean that we should abolish all foreign aid. People depend on it.


My opponent took my argument completely out of context, The Islam account was just a mere illustration to paint the picture of the depth of exploitation which can occur on the poor. My opponent has falsley put my sources into a syllogism and tried to claim I made this argument.

R5) Image of the Poor

Con cannot prove causation and is acting off a mere assumption. If one thinks that something makes you look "selfish and inconsiderate," should it be outlawed? Should we outlaw two-piece swimsuits, even shopping, if I say they look "selfish and inconsiderate?" This isn't an adequate criterion, and thus the contention falls.


I don't understand in what context this rebuttal is being made, I'll ask my opponent to address what is being refuted next time. I made no Contention called "Image of the Poor"

R6) The rich will get priorities over the needy

I already stated why this is not immoral. I stated in round one, why the prevention of the legalization of organ sales is actually immoral.

My opponent's argument is simply her opinion that the rich should have priorities over the needy, she has provided no evidence for why this is moral or logical. She has simply said that the increase in saved lives is enough to dismiss the grand scale of corporate exploitation.

R7) Organs being auctioned off to the highest bidder prioritizes the rich over the needy.



Iran currently is the only place that allows the sales of organs. With the legalization in other countries, systems can be put in place to establish a proper market. As said before, by economic laws: where there is

This is the first mention of legal organ trading in a foreign country, I cannot be expected to now consider this undeveloped unsourced argument

R8) Profit over People



My opponent relies on bare assertions to fulfil his arguments. As said before, with an increase in supply, the prices will drop, making it easier to afford. He doesn’t contest this.


An increase in supply is also an increase in profit on balance, this leads to an unfair cut for the poor as the price for their organs is dropping.

R9) Eclipsing Organ Donations




People who currently give their organs, without financial benefits, are doing so out of altruism -- out of love for a family, or friend, or another human being. They're not being paid for it, but are inconveniencing themselves and paying a personal cost to benefit someone else. Do you, Con, think, people would literally abandon any altruistic tendencies they may have had?

It is reasonable to assert that if you can get paid for doing something for free, why would you do it for free? My opponent has not denied that this would dramatically decrease organ doning and thus collapsing the current system, prioritizing the needy over the rich. Which is not discriminative against the rich. If a rich person is needier than a poor person he will get the organ first. This is a fair and egalitarian system. It's unethical to put a price on a life.

R10) Maximization of profit



Con insinuates that firms maximize revenue when prices are as high as possible. This is incorrect. Firms maximize revenue when the marginal cost equals marginal revenue. When you increase the supply of something, you decrease its costs because your reduced its scarcity. You reduced the costs in the factor markets -- there are more organs, meaning that costs of inventory are down -- and therefore allow businesses to lower their prices in order to sell more. When prices fall, more people are willing and able to buy things.


Again, with a realistic application of this argument. The poor will be the most cheated by the maximization of profits. With the decrease in price they will be selling for less.




Conclusion:

I have rebutted all of my opponents refutations and strongly believe that I should recieve arguments for this debate. I have succesfully shown how under legal organ trading a corrupt system will be put into place prioritizing wealth over health. Not only is this unethical but implies that lives can be purchased with matierialistic wealth.

Currently the organ donation system optimizes effeciency by providing the sickest people with donated organs first.

My opponent has simply claimed that because more lives are saved it is admissable. She has not provided a proper case and therefor I believe I should win this debate.


Thank you,

Debate Round No. 4
104 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Thanks Ragnar.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Pro: A point if you argue this in future... Sale would not need to be strictly highest bidder, it could even be the hospitals paying a fee to the estate of deceased organ donors. Of course that easily bridges into live organ donors, being reimbursed the same basic fee for their time/etc. Doctors are after-all paid for their time during the life saving surgery, so are nurses and other staff members.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
part three
Bookie strengthens her previous arguments by talking about how you must look from both sides in the market, and how Denny once again failed to establish his claims. She then highlights her barely-refuted argument about the black market (which is, IMO, nigh-impossible to refute). She then points out how Denny made a baseless assumption in the example where the guy ran out of money and had bad health as a result of donating his organs. She enhances her point about the black market greatly--incredible! Yes! That's it! You got right to the point!--and easily flies by the rest of the point, reconstructing how about people have rights to their own body parts and how the government cannot fiddle around with people's right, and how "The crux of(her)argument was completely evaded and straw-manned by Con."

I believe I don't have to read the rest. Scanning over the last round, I felt Denny's two-sentence rebuttals, and tries to gain back footage merely by talking about Bookie dismisses arguments, having poor analogies, and how Denny "fails to see how this is a positive contention" for Bookie.

"I have rebutted all of my opponents refutations and strongly believe that I should recieve arguments for this debate."
Haha, no.
I have succesfully shown how under legal organ trading a corrupt system will be put into place prioritizing wealth over health. Not only is this unethical but implies that lives can be purchased with matierialistic wealth. "
No, you haven't done whatever you just said.

And so...Bookie wins. Pretty clear victory for the squirmy one here.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
part 2 (cont.)
He then concludes how the government has the right to legalize, well, basically anything.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
part two
Bookie rebuts quite well to Denny's arguments. She contributes the people's suffering to morality and exploiting the poor not allowing people to have access to organs. She even turns Den's arguments against himself by saying the example of the man escaping his debt to actually an organ-donation going well, and accusses Denny of making a Straw-man fallacy. She then constructs her old morality and equality point by comparing organ-selling to food-selling, then dismisses Denny's case as false. She also adds a good case about why the free market is better than the black market, with the obvious difference in quality. She then moves to con's argument, puts it in a syllogism nut-case, and continues with a few more dismissals of Denny's arguments: black market harms outweigh the poor's self-image harm; the organs will become more affordable, and that Denny does not contest most of the flaws within his arguments. Then she concludes with the rebuttal of the profit-argument by making a very good argument similar to the supply-demand theory.

Denny's refutal is excellent as well. He points out that the people would ultimately have worse lives because the money does not last and the lack of organs would become harmful, then talks about how only the rich will benefit from the greater supply of organs, and supports it with Bookie's own point, asserting his exploitation point from before. He then moves on and strikes Bookie in the throught and reverses the odds upon her by talking about how fallacious the statement was and the fact that the money-incentive was too overpowering. He then talks on about how Bookie "argues from opinion rather than objective fact", and then reminds us that the debate isn't about the rights to receipt organs but rather sell organs, dismissing Bookie's point about immorality at the same time. He flips the tables on Bookie once again and puts HER arguments in a nutshell and explains how it "looks lika a concession to a fallacious argument".
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ANALYZATION OF DEBATE Part one
Bookie starts out her arguments with about saving lives, easier access to organs--due to incentives, and the closing of black markets as well as making organ-sell illegal being immoral. She also asserts that government cannot really make anything truly illegal (going back to her morality argument and that how people have the rights to sell their own organs.

Denny starts out an interesting contention, with how organ donation exploits the poor, is unfair to the rich, and finally how no one will donate anymore because of the money incentive (too much incentive).
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
The voting period is over already?! I really wanted Mikal/Liz to vote. :(
Posted by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
Mikal is a judge, I think Liz reserved his right to vote but I'm not sure if she ever got the chance to write an RFD
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Who else are judges on this one? A shame if that much work from both, ends with only two people voting.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
what a long, long debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
ESocialBookwormDennybugTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: (more in comments) Never thought about this much. CONDUCT: Pro honestly distracted from their argument with such things as complaining of con not violating the debate setup. ARGUMENTS: It boiled down to a quantity verses quality case, with it often feeling like pro was tossing in extra things to try to hit the character limit, and once even forgetting what the resolution was (mistaking it for con arguing to make something illegal, when it already is). Con's arguments about people being forced to sell organs, and left with long term increased health cost, was effective even if far less broad. It would however have been greatly improved with some sources to support said risks in a cross comparison to other industries. SOURCES: I will give some credit to con, for very effectively flipping one. However all his R2 sources were broken, R3 were not properly incorporated, and R4 had none (normally a good thing, but pro asked in R4). As a note, I still hate TinyURL.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
ESocialBookwormDennybugTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Normative resolution, equal burden. PRO showed that the benefits outweigh the costs, therefore she wins. I think both Annie and Denny made a good effort, though.