April PFD Topic
Debate Rounds (4)
Debate will start in the next round :3.
The rules are standard NFL PFD rules; the format is obviously adapted to this site's layout.
On many levels the Pro side of this resolution is is completely and utterly fallacious, and is something we should not look to; I hereby negate.
When looking at this resolution we must look at the National Organ Transplant act or (NOTA). This was a bill passed by congress in 1984 to establish the procedure for organ donation, as well as to encourage organ donation. one major thing entailed by this bill, was the rule explicitly forbidding citizens to sell their organs. Now this of course is a debate, and accordingly we will not just accept the Con as truth because a document says so; however I can and will be using this as a bit of framework to prove my point.
As for the definitions;
1. financial incentives: monetary compensation for organs.
2. Donor: a person who makes a gift of property
3. Vendor: a person who sells property
4. Organ: A necessary part of the human body required for homeostasis
The means and times of these financial incentives are not specified in the resolution as grounds of debate, thus they will not be issues the need to be argued; what we are arguing is simply whether or not the U.S. Federal Government should permit these financial incentives.
That said, I offer you three independent arguments; if the impacts I present outweigh the impacts of the Pro, the vote must go to the con.
Argument 1: The united states' substantial debt and organ donation is costly
This point is fairly obvious to any-one here in the U.S. who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to the past six years; we've been in several wars, supported relief funds to various countries such as Haiti, Japan, and Korea; and have been supporting social security to the elderly and disabled. as of  April 11th 2011, the US national debt clock reached $14,279,190,561,330.12. Factor in that the U.S. population is roughly 310,367,111 people, and we see that each citizen's share of the debt is $46,007.42. Along with this already substantial debt, organ transplants cost colossal amounts of money; with the cheapest being the kidney at more than $200,000, and the more expensive transplants being the heart-lung, and intestines only transplants at more than $1,000,000. We can't afford to pay the debt we already owe, the government allowing this funding for organ transplant procedures is completely out of the question.
We've even gotten to the point of a Government Shutdown due to lack of funding. Now this is obviously a hot button issue, that will not have consensual agreement in congress. If the Republicans and Democrats couldn't even stop bickering over their own agendas long enough to support the needs of the general American population; what chance is there of funding being allotted for an already controversial issue that only affects a small portion of society? The fact is there is none; we must negate.
Argument 2: Families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated
 ultimately the families of the deceased make the final decision on whether or not they want their loved ones organs to be donated. So even if somebody wanted to be an organ donor, their family can simply say no; thus the government could be out thousands, even millions of dollars for these financial incentives and never even get the organs. Make a direct link between this and my prior argument regarding funding, and we can see that voting Pro in this debate is not a possibility.
For a moment, let's say that some-how funding for these financial incentives has been found, in this case we must still refer back to the fact that families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated; thus we could (and likely will) still have the negative impact of the government paying out these financial incentives and never get the organs.
But it goes even deeper than that; let's say that by signing up to become an organ donor who would be receiving these financial incentives, you forfeit your families right to say no to having your organs donated upon your death. In this case the families will suffer and have their rights violated. When a person dies heir body becomes the property of their loved ones, and by taking away this body (i.e. the organs) the right to property is violated.
Now in order to fully and completely grasp this idea, we must realize something first;  the dead do not have rights. So in order for these organs to be rightfully donated, they must be donated while the person is still alive; at this point the realm of he debate is not only about organ donation, but about euthanasia, artificial life, and other various medical practices.
Argument 3: Donor indicates that the person is not paid
The main impact here, is that in the status quo there are already people who willingly choose to be organ donors, not for any kind of financial compensation; but because they see it as a noble cause and want to support it. However when we pay these people for their organs, they are no longer donors; but they are vendors.
Organ donation is a noble act, when some-one decides they want to give their most dear and personal possessions; they only thing in this world that is undeniably theirs, for the sake of another, they should be allowed that dignity. However when we allot money for this charity, it is no longer a noble task; but a way to make a quick buck.
In conclusion, you must vote Con in this round because the United States cannot afford this, families can opt out of organ donation, and to keep organ donation noble.
Statically speaking 36 people have died waiting for an organ from the time con posted his argument and I have replied that number will only increase as our debate continues. Roughly 18 people will die each day waiting for an organ; of course this number is low as we are only counting those fortunate enough to make it on the US waiting list of over 110,500 people 
The simple fact is the demand for organs out strips the supply. The current system of barring financial incentives for organ donation is killing people at worst, or letting them die at best.
If financial incentives can increase the supply of organs thus saving lives how can we not vote PRO?
We are debate the ethics of offer financial incentives to encourage donation; something My opponent has yet to cover. He offers the truth that I've already agreed to, but his conclusion of offering these financial incentives is non-sequitar. He simply says -people are dying, so why not-?
Also we have to take notice that the argument my opponent presents is not something that has any kind of negative impact on the Con; the only harm he presents, death, is inevitable anyway. He doesn't solve for the harm he presents, nor does he prove that financial incentives would change the status quo.
I urge a Con ballot.
Argument 1: The united states' substantial debt and organ donation is costly.
The resolution "The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation". It does not suggest the federal government should provide the financial incentives, it clearly states it should permit the use of. In other words individuals or groups should be allowed to offer financial incentives, if anything cons point works against his argument, if the fed allowed a free market, then it would be another income stream for them, as they could tax the incentive.
Argument 2: Families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated
While this is true, I view this as a failing of the current system. If I die and will my estate to a charity, my family doesn't get to opt out of my request and keep my property. The current system which con supports is horrible, how you are meant to procure enough organs by approaching people right at the moment of, the death of a loved one and asking if they have any objection to donating the organs. Is it any wonder that con's current system does not meet the demand? An incentive based system will allow people to rationally arrange in advance , hopefully far from the emotional rollercoaster moment of their death, how their organs and the financial incentives they earn should be used and sparing their loved ones additional burdens.
Argument 3: Donor indicates that the person is not paid.
I can give two examples off the top of my head where donors are compensated for their donation, sperm donors and egg donors. But if Con wants to haggle I would gladly call people who donate their organs vendors, because we need them as con as already admitted the current system cannot meet the demand. Con will have you believe that it is less "noble" to expect to be compensated for your donation, but I ask you which is the more noble act, donating a kidney while receiving compensation and saving a life, or arguing that act is selfish and illegal which prevents such acts taking place thus allowing people to die.
My opponent suggests the only harm I present "is death, which is inevitable anyway". While I agree death is inevitable, we can delay it for those on the list through organ donation, Con is suggesting that the 144 people who have died since this debate started, would have died anyway eventually so what do those deaths or all of the deaths caused by the lack of available organs mater.
Lastly he suggest that I do not prove that financial incentives will work, we only have to look at the fact that there is a thriving black market in organs, or look at countries that have made financial incentives legal like Iran for instance, The Iranians began compensating for kidney donations in 1988 and eliminated the shortage of kidneys by 1999.
I believe I have clearly shown that financial incentives can work, and the current system does not.
1. My opponent still doesn't solve for the issue we are debating; thus he is off topic, and cannot hope to win this debate. He never proves that financial incentives would save all of these people from dying either, again adding to the mix that death is unavoidable; and my opponent has no impact in this round. By default you must vote Con.
My opponent is correct in their statement that the resolution doesn't imply the federal government would necessarily pay for the organ transplants, however the resolution also does not indicate that the government would not be paying for these incentives. Ultimately we must assume the most plausible situation when debating a resolution such as this; and the most plausible thing, is that it would indeed be the government giving out these financial incentives.
We have to remember that this is donation, not marketing; The incentives are more along the lines of a gift, than a payment for services rendered. The organs are going towards the national transplant list; so again, it is government oriented. Also since this is donation, my opponent has no impact on the free market economy; or the Tax incentive.
First my opponent agrees to this point, so I already win this area.
Second my opponent only critiques the idea I offer without providing any alternative. This is PFD debate, and not Policy debate; so my refutation here is not that my opponent offer no counterplan, but simply that we don't know that the alternative would be better.
He claims that an incentive based system would make people more willing to donate, but there is no warrant here; we cannot know that this is true, because Pro doesn't prove it to be true.
Compensation does not equate payment.
Again extend my argument that "Financial Incentives" is going to be more akin to a gift than a payment for services rendered; so then at the point my opponent admits that these people are not organ donors, but organ vendors I will win since my opponent does not meet the burden the resolution gives him.
On the argument that death is inevitable; my opponent is mis-construing my attack. If you'll go back to my prior speech in which I make this attack, you will see that I'm point out that death is something that will always be present, I in no way advocate that since people are dying we ought to simply kill them off. While the death of any-one is always sad, it is ultimatelty inevitable; we must not blatantly and blindly argue the pathos stance of life. It must have an impact in this round before we can consider it.
As for my opponent's final argument regarding the black market, and iran; I ask that these not be weighed in this round, simply because they're abusive. My opponent offers these point as a very obscure underview, and as a new argument in the second to last speech.
Not that he would win them anyway.
With the argument of the black market, this is an extreme; and people who would resort to such extremes are people whom either have no moral conciousness, or are simply that desperate. This doesn't transfer to mainstream society, as people certainly have different moral and societal standards. Also, if my opponent claims the black marker working as an advantage, then he must also claim the negative impacts associated with this; Including the fact that many people are killed when interacting with the black market in a death toll certainly higher that that of those whom die from not having a necessary organ fro trasnplant.
As for Iran, the Government gave these financial incentives from their own federal budget  cross applying this with my own Argument 1, and we see that this is still something we cannot do. Secondly, Iran has a much different government style than we do; just because the iranian people where willing to donate organs via financial incentives, doesn't mean that american people would be willing.
For all these reasons; I urge a Con vote.
“1. My opponent still doesn't solve for the issue we are debating; thus he is off topic, and cannot hope to win this debate. He never proves that financial incentives would save all of these people from dying either, again adding to the mix that death is unavoidable; and my opponent has no impact in this round. By default you must vote Con.”
I am afraid the Con is confused the issue we are debating is whether “The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation.” I do not have to prove that financial incentives would save all of those currently waiting for a life saving organ, I just have to show that by allowing financial incentives we can encourage organ donation. The Con’s burden is to prove that financial incentives would not encourage organ donation if anyone is guilty of being off topic it is the Con.
The Con’s first argument “The united states' substantial debt and organ donation is costly” fails to prove that financial incentives would not encourage organ donation, if anything his fear of it bankrupting the US government must mean that the Con believes there will be a substantial amount of people encouraged to donate organs which will in turn, he wrongly believes, bankrupt the US government. He does little to address the point raised that the resolution does not state that the US government will have to pay for the financial incentives. It only has to permit them, the only proof the Con offers is his belief that “the most plausible thing, is that it would indeed be the government giving out these financial incentives.” And he thinks this is plausible because of the word donation? Even though I provided two examples of donors (sperm and egg), who receive financial incentives which come from private institutions or individuals, not the US government.
The Con’s second argument “Families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated” again does not prove that the use of financial incentives will discourage organ donation. The Con cheaply tries to claim a victory “my opponent agrees to this point, so I already win this area.” But it has nothing to do with our resolution so I’m not sure exactly what he is winning. As I correctly pointed out it is a flaw with the “Nobel” system he is trying to protect at the price of human lives.
The Con’s third argument Compensation does not equate payment.
“Again extend my argument that "Financial Incentives" is going to be more akin to a gift than a payment for services rendered;” The Con is attempting to redefine his original definition “1. Financial incentives: monetary compensation for organs.” But even if we allow this it does not prove that that the use of financial incentives will discourage organ donation. The Con is trying to win this debate by saying once you allow financial incentives then they aren’t donating organs they are selling them, so donated organs aren’t increasing. Again I’ll point out the sperm donor who is paid, which the Con ignored, and I’ll ask what of a person who makes a donation to a charity, and receives a tax break because of it, is that not a form of a US government financial incentive designed to encourage donation. Are they not donors because they benefit from their donation?
“As for my opponent's final argument regarding the black market, and Iran;…” I have to take umbrage with this statement, this is simply poor form on the part of the Con, to suggest I have introduced a new argument, I only answered his call for evidence of the obvious “… nor does he prove that financial incentives would change the status quo.” Then right after asking the honorable audience to dismiss the evidence provided. WHAT HO!! The Con tries to refute it poor form, poor form.
The Con’s own arguments show that he knows that financial incentives would encourage organ donation His fear of bankrupting the US Gov is proof of that. His attempts to swing the debate on semantics or debate policy and not presenting on topic arguments that refute the resolution speak volumes.
Since this debate started over 200 people have died waiting for an organ, the United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation, ask yourself, if it did, would some of those people still be alive.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DanT 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro misunderstood the resolution, and tried to save himself by claiming Con misunderstood his own resolution. The resolution was should financial incentives be used, not if they would work. For this reason I'm giving Con conduct. It's no wonder this is the 1st vote in a debate that ended 2 years ago. >.<
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.