The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

April PFD Topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,452 times Debate No: 15836
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation.

Hey guys, this is my first debate on here.
I do PFD debate, and when I found out about this site I though it would be cool to join.

Debate will start in the next round :)


Hi, welcome to the site, it's a great place for debaters to test their cases.

I accept your debate, and let's have a fun, educational debate shall we?
Debate Round No. 1


Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation.

When looking at this resolution, there are a few things that come to mind that should be stated for clarification

OBS_1: The resolution uses the word "Permit", This is very important because this will in fact scope the way this debate is debated. The resolution never states that the funding for the financial incentives would come from federal sources, it simply says to permit these incentives. What we are arguing here is whether or not funding should be permitted to be given as financial incentive.

OBS_2: The resolution uses the word "encourage" which signifies that not only would organ donation be completely voluntary, but that there is a need for organ donation in our society. I will expand upon the need for donation and donation being voluntary later on as needed.

With these things in perspective of the resolution, I will now present three independent arguments. If any one of them is true, then the resolution is true, and the vote must be to the Pro.

Argument 1: There is a need for organ donors in our society-

[1] "...Despite the number of transplants, there are still not enough donor organs to fill the needs of those who require them. As of October 19, 2005, more than 89,790 people were on the waiting list for a suitable donor organ. More than 12,700 people wait five or more years to get a matching organ. Experts with Donate Life, a government-sponsored educational organization, estimate 17 people die every day because they are unable to get a donor organ in time."

[2] "Each month, 1,000 people are added to the national organ transplant waiting list, which tops more than 75,000. Nearly half of the patients die waiting for a life-saving transplant.

Although 89 percent of the U.S. population favors donation, only 1 in 4 consent - leaving the rate of donation around 5,000 a year, far below the demand."

[2]"When a body is donated for transplant more than 100 people can benefit. Not only are organs used, but bones and tissues are also valuable life-enhancing transplants. More than 600,000 people benefit each year from tissue transplants, while more than 45,000 have better vision each year because of corneal transplants."

Now if we where to give out financial incentives for donation whether it be from an individual, charity, or hospital; this number would most assuredly go up. The impact here, is that there would not be nearly as many deaths because of something so avoidable.

Argument 2: Making organ donation taboo costs lives-

There are many, many, MANY, rumors surrounding Organ donation; and almost all of them are false. The only reason I even bother to say "almost" is that I don't know all of the rumors about this process, [3] but we can look at some of the most common. Here are a few myths, and the truths behind them;

Myth 1: "If I agree to donate my organs, the attending physician or emergency room staff won't try to save my life. They'll remove my organs as soon as possible to save somebody else"
Truth 1: When in such a situation doctors bound not only by their Hippocratic oath, but common ethics to save your life; not someone else's

Myth 2: "What if I'm not actually dead when they sign my death certificate? It'll be too late for me if they've taken my organs for transplantation. I might have otherwise recovered."
Truth 2: Physicians are not going to declare a person dead with-out first going through the proper procedures

Myth 3: "I want or my loved one wants to have an open-casket funeral. That can't happen if his or her organs or tissues have been donated."
Truth 3: For an open casket funeral, the body is only seen up to the middle torso, so signs of organ, or tissue transplants aren't going to be visible; For cornea transplants, glass is inserted and the eyelids are sealed shut during the embalming process; and for bone transplants, metal rods are inserted wherever the bones are taken from to maintain form.

There are many other common myths, but I think these prove my point just fine; because of the "he said, she said" nature of myth and rumor surrounding organ donation, millions of people die needlessly every year. However by offering financial incentives, and proper organ donation education to possible donors, we can not only dispel these nasty rumors; but again, we will save lives.

Argument 3: Organs not donated, are wasted-

[4]When a person dies, their body is treated and goes through a process known as "embalming". In this process, the body is completely drained of all it's blood, lymph, and other bodily fluids; is injected with a chemical known as "formaldehyde" or other preservative chemical to help the body from decomposing.
Not only is the body not kept in it's natural state at the time burial, but this is a complete waste of perfectly good blood that may well have saved another person's life through a blood or plasma transfusion.

After this, an incision is made in the lower abdomen, and the contents of the stomach, and intestines are removed; the organs are then aspirated, or dried out, and full strength embalming fluid is pumped into the organs and abdominal area.
Again, the body is not kept in it's natural state; but the organs are decimated for the purpose of preservation, and otherwise life saving organs are destroyed.

Now the impacts here, are not only is embalming mandatory prior to burial; but it is also rather expensive. By giving financial incentives to organ donors, the costs of funerals will be greatly lessened for families. However definitely an even larger impact is the saving of lives.

Thus vote pro, and save lives.


Alright, let's start off with my case

I negate the resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation.

Contention 1: capatalism

Capatalism is the root of all evil. Capatalism is a destructive tool used to justify poverty, war, and the advance in elitism. In fact, all problems in the world can be traced to capatlism. We can link this, because the federal government encouraging the use of financial incentives is the federal government encouraging capatalism. Because we encourage people to donate organs, through money, we are encouraging an ultimatley evil concept.

contention 2: Organs are not property

Although financial incentives do not necessarily mean that a direct cash exchange will take place, they are still assigned a monetary value in some regard by the use of financial incentives. If everyone accepts that organs are items like anything else that could be bought or sold, then organs and indeed the people who posses them. could be treated like other things of value that we barter. In such a system, it would be logical that creditors might have a say about what happens to your assets. Opening the doorway to financial incentives for organ donation places organs in a new, exchangeable light. Although human gametes are commonly sold, they are to an extent renewable tissue and not vital organs. The uniqueness of vital internal organs demands different ethical standards. Even at that

Contention 3:

This is less of a contention, but because I wanted to put specific emphasis on this one point. I would like for the pro to prove to me that financial incentives actually are an effective way to encourage donation. If he can prove that financial incentives specifically have helped organ donation. If he cannot, why should they promote it, if there is no way to help.

I reserve the right to extend these points as the debate goes on.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his constructive speech!

First off all, I would like to make a point of clarification; in PFD debate, both sides have the burden of proof to prove their stance. At the point that one does not prove their stance (be it Pro or Con) the vote in the round must go to their opponent. That is the very reason that the sides in PFD debate are called Pro and Con as opposed to Affirmative and Negative.
For instance, in Value debate the Affirmative always has the burden of proof to show why the resolution must be affirmed, where as the Negative's job is to show that the Affirmative is wrong; accordingly LD's design is set up to achieve this as the Affirmative always goes first, and the Negative always goes negative.
Whereas in PFD either the Pro or the Con can go first, as both have a burden to prove and it doesn't matter who lays out their constructive first; they must both warrant their stance.

That said I will now proceed to attack my opponent's Arguments.

Contention 1: Capitalism

I have several attacks here;
a. Make a direct link to my observation 1, the resolution states that the government would "permit" financial incentives, it doesn't say that the government will provide these Financial incentives. Thus my opponent's argument on capitalism is not an issue in this debate, as capitalism doesn't have anything to do with the government allowing financial incentives.

b. My opponent's link to the resolution here is vague at best; the only link he provides is a claim saying that by encouraging donation, something that by basic definition does not entail finance, that we support an economic ideal. However there is no warrant behind this argument; neither empirical nor philosophical; thus his link is broken and even if he can refute argument a, he will still have no impact here.

c. My opponent provides no warrant for why capitalism is evil, he simply provides multiple claims that are in lines of something negative. thus he loses impact here twofold.

Contention 2: Organ Are Not Property

According to [1], property is defined as "something owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by someone" people on their organs, thus organs are indeed property; and the basis of my opponent's claim falls.
that said I still have a few argument here

a. My opponent builds this picture that organ donation is like a market, where people can simply buy and sell their organs at will; however the truth is far different that that. First of all, since these are donations, it is not a market situation. It's like when you send money into a charity and you receive a gift in return. My opponent however falsely assumes that this system is like buying a soda from a store.

b. My opponent picks and chooses what he considers to be organs; thus he only partially proves his point. For example, he says that donating tissue is okay because it can grow back; but donation a heart s not okay since it cannot grow back. An organ however is simply part of a person's body essential to maintain homeostasis; therefore tissue, gametes, blood, lymph, and even skin are organs

c. My opponent argues this contention from the stance that the organ is donated while the person is still alive, whereas organ donation is not something that occurs until after a person is already dead. Thus when a person is dead, no organ is vital; they're dead.

Contention 3:
I have plenty to say here,
a. First make a direct link to what I've said prior to attacking his contentions, both my opponent and I have a burden to prove our stance; not just me. Therefore if my opponent puts this burden on me, he must make this same burden reciprocal upon himself. At which point I still win because my arguments have more merit and validity than m opponent's

b. In PFD we argue the Pro's and Con's of a resolution; it is a debate of reciprocal burdens, not one where I must warrant this beyond the shadow of a doubt. If it where it would be impossible for me to win since selling organs is illegal; there is no way I can fairly argue under such an abusive burden.

The warrant is within human nature. People want money, and will do whatever it take to get this money; if that means allowing your organs to be used to save lives after you no longer need them and are already deceased, then by all means it will be done.

c. First off all my opponent of course has the right to extend any argument he makes in his constructive; just as I do. However in order for him to actually extend an argument, ad not simply be making a new argument; it must be in direct consistency with what he has already presented.

It is utterly against the rules of PFD debate to present new information in a latter speech following the constructive.

At this point I ask for a Pro ballot based on the content of this debate thus far, under the ground that my opponent provides no reason for voting Con.


As my opponent said, in pf, we both hold the burdon of proof. And he is right, although I would consider the first two rounds constructive, and the last round the "final focus"

I'll start with my case and then move to my opponents

a. even permiting financial incentives, is an encouraging of capatalism
b. my impacts are poverty and dehumanization and war
c. Capatalism causes poverty, because it is very easy for the rich to get richer in a capatalist society, but to do so, they must push other people down. This causes people to be pushed to the bottom rung and denied needs to justify the free market. financial incentives for anything, capatalize said thing

an organ is something that is a part of you and often defines you
a. like i said, the current organ donation is a good one in that it does not treat it like it is a market, but then you are basically encouraging people to literally sell their bodies
b. but the specific donations people need like your first contention states is that people are looking for hearts, kidneys, lungs etc.
c. Why would we encourage financial incentives to dead people. Isn't that just literally throwing money into a hole

a. I don't have to make a link I'm asking you a simple question, and through said burdon, it will devolp an argument
b. There are statistics of organ black market dealings. You have to do the research to
c: people do not want money when they are dead

Now onto his case
1: extend my point 3. If he cannot prove that people are willing to donate with financial incentives. He states: "Now if we where to give out financial incentives for donation whether it be from an individual, charity, or hospital; this number would most assuredly go up. The impact here, is that there would not be nearly as many deaths because of something so avoidable."- He still has the burdon of proof that this will solve

2: I never claimed it to be taboo, why can't we encourage it without financial incentives. If point three will be extended across, they will solve equally

once again I ask, how willl financial incentive coerxe dead people into buying organs.

I await the final focus
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has conceded that we both have the burden of proof, and provided the equally true statement, that it is fair to use the firs two speeches as constructive , and the last speech as a final focus.

That said My opponent still has a burden of proof; he has done nothing in the way of proving his stance in his first speech and unless he does so in this last speech, The Pro will win by default.

That said I will start with my opponent's case, go to my own, and finish with some voters.

a. There is no warrant here; making an argument like this with-out any logical explanation, or a piece of evidence is completely and utterly abusive. We must not accept it.
b. My opponent claims these impacts of poverty, dehumanization, and war; but he never proves these impacts or even mentions why he has such impacts.
c. Again my opponent makes a good claim; but he has no warrant to back up this argument. The extent of his logic here is a small amount of analysis, but the conclusion her derives is non-sequitar; thus it has no impact in this round.

a. This is not true; this statement is based completely on assumption, despite the fact that I have already proven otherwise in both my constructive speech, and my attacks on my opponent's case last round.
b. It still doesn't matter my opponent is still picking and choosing what organs he deems okay, and which organs he deems as bad. These people whom are donating their organs are already dead; there is nothing to worry about, all of their organs are equally useless to them, and equally lifesaving to another person who needs the organ.
c. Absolutely not; the money can be used to help with funeral costs ( a huge benefit to the poor my opponent claims are being taken advantage of ), it can be given to the family of the deceased as a bit of financial security, or it could even be used to pay off a debt that this person owes.

a. You absolutely have to make a link, and you must also make this burden reciprocal; otherwise you skew my grounds of debate, and hurt my over-all chances in this debate. If it where a simply question, you could have asked it in the comments section for clarification.
b. I have done plenty of research on this resolution; yet you make this claim with-out a source to back it up. This argument is completely abusive and falls.
c. Extend my attacks on C2 c.

1. Again he must make this burden reciprocal; He never proves that people aren't willing to donate with financial incentives present; thus he imposes a burden on me he doesn't meet himself, and her loses all impact here. as for his attack on my my statement regarding that numbers of organ donors going up; first of all I already prove this when I say that it is within human nature to want to gain monetary value.

2. I never said he claimed organ donation to be taboo; it it however a false belief that exists in the status quo. This was one one of my constructive arguments, he never argues this. And again, his contention three is not a reciprocal burden to himself, thus it loses all it's impact.

3. My opponent provides no attack here whatsoever.

Finally, I want to point something out; the entirety of the attacks my opponent has made on my case are simply cross-applications of his own contention three. Something that he openly admits isn't even actually a contention, but a question to me. Thus he makes utterly no attack on my case.

Whereas both his constructive, and his extensions, have no warrant. He provides no logical analysis, nor does he provide any kind of empirical evidence. He simply makes claim, after claim, with no content to any of it. You absolutely, and utterly cannot accept his prior speech as viable; you must vote Pro in this round.

I look forward to the final focus.


FML, My internet went down right as I was halfway done with my arguments, consider this a forfeited round for the con. Thanks to pro for the very interesting debate, and once again I apologize

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 7 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: While con had an interesting constructive, he only provided warrants for claims after pro pointed out that there were none, such as why cap is bad. Conduct for final round, spelling for several uncapitalized sentences, and pro used sources.