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

Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,746 times Debate No: 63283
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)




Greetings, Lizzie Liz, and welcome to the show
I'll allow you to choose your topic an' side, yo yo yo!
It's like a debating version of nomic, only for pros

You can accept round one or start makin' your case
But in the latter situation, last round do you have to waive
I only request nothing religious or any old debate I've done
Repeating my side once more is just a dumb clone

I trust in your judgement, lots of freedom I'm givin yar
I know I'll probably lose to this amazing debating all-star
But I will gain much, I believe, as debatability--
Will give me such knowledge as oxygen to a tree

Go ahead, accept, but make your choice wisely
For you cannot change it once you post your response
I don't really care when you accept, I'm free--speaking timely

By accepting you agree that the creative rap above will play no part in the judges' decisions within arguments within the debate. Thank you. :D

Rap translation:
Choose your topic. If you accept round one, then you can have the last round for rebuttals and conclusion. If you start round one, you leave last round empty. I believe this will be a good debate! Accept when you can.


The resolution my opponent and I will be debating is: A presumed consent system of organ donation is the most just policy. I will be taking the con side, and 9space will take the pro.

With the permission of my opponent, I have been allowed to post a few definitions before we begin. He has viewed these definitions beforehand and agreed to them. There should be no semantic arguments pertaining these words.

presumed: to accept legally or officially that something is true until it is proved [or shown] not true (Webster)
organ procurement:
the removal or retrieval of organs from a donor for transplantation (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network)
deceased: either irreversible discontinuance of circulatory / respiratory functions, or an irreversible discontinuance of the entire brain (including the brainstem) This is not to be confused with coma or a vegetative state. (Uniform Determination of Death Act)
Organ Procurement: the removal or retrieval of organs from a donor for transplantation and research (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network)

As what "justice" is will be a viable part of this debate, I will save defining it for my argument. I'm looking forward to a great debate!!
Debate Round No. 1


I have no idea where to start. I think I'm too distracted by her beauty. :P
I don't want to waste one precious round, therefore I introduce my alter ego, who will debate for me against debatability.
It's a good thing Jack--or rather, I--am not distracted by mere beauty. I will remain in this debate for all the rounds, unlike any other debate, and I trust that debatability will have a good challenge in this debate against me. Let me introduce my first argument.
"Every day in the United States, 17 people die waiting for an organ transplant.
The number of people on the waiting list for an organ has more than tripled over the last ten years and now exceeds 82,000 individuals; at the same time, the number of donors has remained relatively stagnant (OPTN, 2004).
In 2001, 6,439 people died while waiting for a transplant, nearly double the 3,916 candidates who died while waiting just five years earlier in 1996....there is only an increasing organ shortage in the United States."
This quote is from the introductory paragraph of the source below.
As you can see people clearly need organ transplants. It would only be justified to benefit the nation with presumed consent. That way, more people will be saved.
It is evident that indeed, presumed consent does help the nation and save more people. As the same article notes, "After Belgium passed presumed consent legislation in 1986, its donation rates also rose dramatically (Michielsen, 1996)." Not only so, other examples are noted to, with Leuven's rise from 15 to 40 donors a year, and Austria's rate of donation rose by 4 times. There is a definite positive increase of donation that saves those lives. A just society would want to save more people rather than killing people, of course, and therefore presumed consent is the best policy.

The same exact source also noted the economic advantages of presumed consent. This economic gain could help the government as well.
"In the United States, there are currently over 50,000 people on the waiting list for kidney transplants, which potentially represents a large savings in healthcare expenditures." The site states. Spain, a country with presumed consent, saves more than 200,000 euros in cost every year due to its policy. [] Alright, is that not outstanding? Some policy can save people and help the government's economy? What could be better?

The answer is, my friends, better education. Obviously presumed consent wouldn't be very fair if nobody knew they were going to lose their kidneys after they died, and they respect their full body by some religious mumbo-jumo. But of course, this "just society" would make sure as much people recieve education as possible, so this wouldn't be a problem. As everyone could make the decision when they are adults after their good, fair education, people will know they have to say "no" if they don't want their organs to be donated for whatever reason.

In addition, won't you think about the poor families, filled with grief, having to make the decision? They are struck with trauma at their daughter or son's death, leave them alone. Let the doctor have the choice and alleviate the emotional pain from the families. Besides, only the donor gets to truly decide whether he or she wants to donate his or her organs, not his or her family. This freedom of choice, especially after education, is just and fair. But of course--obviously his or her family can have a say in the matter, not that these living people's rights are ignored, only that the donor's choice is chosen in priority if the donor's true choice is unclear.

As you can see it is just and fair for presumed consent. This is the best and most just policy possible. I have a rising anxiousness for the arguments that will come from my opponent, but I know I have already calculated in my mind masterfully, full well of what my opponent will hand to me, and have prepared very good rebuttals.

Onto you, my friend debatability.


Before I begin the round, I'd like to briefly clarify a few things. Firstly, the presumed consent system that pro is defending pertains to the deceased only. This may seem obvious, but I figured it was worth noting since I forgot to add that in to the resolution. Also, the resolution my opponent and I are debating doesn't necessarily pertain to the actions of a just society; I worded it slightly differently from the LD resolution.
To clarify, my opponent cannot necessarily make the claim that a presumed consent system will work because the societies we are talking about in this debate are "perfectly just."

That being said, on to my case.

Though this debate isn't being done in a strictly LD format, I would like to explain my framework in attempt make my position a bit easier to understand. The highest value within todays round should be justice based on resolutionality. Macmillan dictionary defines justice as, "treatment of people that is fair and morally right."
The best way to achieve justice is through maximizing choice. Simply put, negating the resolution allows for more systems of obtaining organs for transplant. The affirmative is limited to defending the “opt-out” system. The negative is able to provide multiple counterplans that would work for different societies. Even if the counterplans contradict each other, they should be considered viable options for different societies because the actual specifics of a just society are dependent upon how justice is interpreted and understood.

To elaborate on my framework, no society can be fully just; what makes a society just is the act of making decisions that promote “justice.” A requirement for a just society is harmony within its population and itself. The burden on the negative is to prove that the affirmative cannot reach increased harmony.

C1: Presumed consent can backfire.

Presumed consent does not always work. Boseley gives an example: “for instance the Brazilian government implemented a presumed consent system… only to abolish it one year later… citing public fear and criticism (1).” Wright shows that Brazil is not the only place where such a system is likely to fail, “Countries where autonomy is highly prized, such as North America… people may be more likely to donate when they feel they retain control of that decision (2).” Johns Hopkins continues, “Presumed consent would not likely to increase the donation rate in the United States (3).” There are several reasons that presumed consent often fails, first being family. Ultimately, a system that forces individuals to consult their families about organ procurement, or a system that completely eliminates the need for discussion is going to cause the least amount of conflict among families. For example, a presumed consent system in France would be unlikely to work because only 40% of the population currently discusses organ donation with their families (4). If consent is presumed for an individual there, and the family objects because no discussion has taken place, conflict arises. The second reason would be opposition to the plan. As John Hopkins suggested, the United States most likely wouldn’t be able to increase donation rates with such a system because of the huge value placed on autonomy. The same goes for Brazil. Here I have successfully pointed out multiple cases where presumed consent would not increase harmony.

C2: Other choices.

There are multiple ways to solve problems that presumed consent is unable to solve for. Different methods can work for different societies. Just because presumed consent would "work" for a specific society, doesn't mean another plan wouldn't be more successful.

The first potential option is the idea of making organ donation compulsory. This essentially takes any affirmative impacts and turns them over to the negative side because compulsory organ procurement obviously ensures a high donation rate. Silver explains, “a person who chooses not to donate harms patients who need organs but are unable to get them… potential donors who reject donation create inefficient use of resources (5).” Societies that suffer from severe organ shortages can benefit from this system even more than with presumed consent.

Another potential option would be mandated choice, the act of forcing everyone to either opt in or opt out of donation, ensuring autonomy. This option is highly supported in countries such as shown by opinion polls in Maryland, “an overwhelming 90% would support mandated choice while a smaller percentage (60%) would support presumed consent (6).” Mandated choice solves the common problem of families making choices that go against their specific wishes because as Chouhan explains, “relatives have neither power nor opportunity to veto an individual’s decision.” Mandated choice can resolve family conflicts and raise a donation rate while preserving the most autonomy possible, a viable option in societies such as the United States. Couhan continues, “this system is justified by the view that people really ought to decide about how they want to be governed (7).”

While this option only pertains to living transplants, it is a just action to take in societies specifically suffering from problems pertaining to the black market organ trade. Such a plan is almost guaranteed to eradicate the black market. Hippen explains, “these protections distinguish a regulated system of incentives for organ procurement from the significant harms generated by organ trafficking (8).” This plan was specifically helpful in Iran, resulting in virtually no waiting list for kidneys, as well as eliminating the existing black market (9).

As mentioned before, different societies with different needs and values can utilize the most just option for them specifically in the negative world because of the added choices.
None of the policies I have mentioned above have to work in a "certian way." There are variations to each policy pertaining to what to do with unidentified bodies, how to educate the public, ect. In the negative world, societies have the freedom to morph these policies into what will best suit their needs.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks debatability. Jack here.
"Though this debate isn't being done in a strictly LD format...Even if the counterplans contradict each other, they should be considered viable options for different societies because the actual specifics of a just society are dependent upon how justice is interpreted and understood...The burden on the negative is to prove that the affirmative cannot reach increased harmony."
Oh ho ho, you really do seem to have tricks up your sleeve! Let's see what you say.

C1: P.C. can backfire
I see, I see. However, my opponent needs to prove that another policy can't backfire. For example, in the manual consent policy, in which people are assumed to NOT want to donate their organs unless they say otherwise, this policy can backfire as well. People can be annoyed at having to go to some organ donation hospital place and say for themselves "Yes, sir, I want to donate organs." And in addition, most people do want to donate organs. The same family problems would occur even in the manual consent policy. Studies show [] that "Nearly 72 percent of Americans said they wanted to donate their organs after death, even if their family disagrees", "but only 38 percent of licensed drivers are registered to [donate organs]". Those 72% would all have to go to hospitals and annoyingly fill in information and say "Yes, yes, I want to donate my organs after I die." MAJORITY RULES. It would be more just to force that 28% to go to hospitals and fill in information and say "No, I don't want to donate my organs after I die" rather than those 72%.

C2: Other choices
Okay, here we go now....I'll rebut all of these one by one.

A: Forced donation
Unfortunately this makes people lose their freedom of choice, contradicting against the part concerning "just society". A just society would give two choices to people.

B: Mandated choice
Ah, this is what I was talking about. relatives have neither power nor opportunity to veto an individual’s decision.” This is absurd. If relatives have power in presumed consent, then they will have power in mandated choice. These two policies work in the same way, only that one assumes you don't want to donate while the other assumes you want to donate.

C: Organ sales legalization
So....? Presumed consent would be like one gazillion times more effective, no? Those greedy hoarders would be completely unable to access organs, with most people wanting to donate their organs, they don't have to go through the trouble to register and tell the hopsital their decision, and those that don't want to donate their organs would not gladly give their organs to the greedy hoarders in exchange for money.

Societies may have the freedom to morph into these policies temporarily, but overall, presumed consent is the best policy for a just society. When in doubt, a society should stick to P.C.

I was actually expecting my opponent to just start rebutting with the fact that people can be diagnosed brain disease and the brain test isn't 100% accurate. But I guess she realized this problem applies to all other policies too.
For this round, I believe Debatabilities' arguments are destroyed. 9spaceking has made a good decision. I, Jack McGonnell, still hold the upper hand in this debate.
Onto you, Debatability.


Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to note that we are not debating the LD resolution. The resolution we are debating is: A presumed consent system of organ donation (for the deceased) is the most just policy. Unlike the LD resolution, this resolution doesn't necessarily pertain to "what just societies would do" rather, it pertains to what societies as a whole should do. Therefore, as a judge, don't listen to any claims by pro pertaining to a just society already having attributes that would caused presumed consent to be successful.

Opponent's Case
For ease in reading, I'll divide pro's arguments into a few categories: solvency, economy, education, and family.

Pro's first point can be split up into two claims (a) organs are needed and (b) presumed consent solves this need. I agree with point a; point b is what I will stress on.
Firstly, pro's Stanford evidence actually brings doubt to the success of presumed consent (1). This article talks about the probability of the term "presumed consent" leading to fear and public criticism. Look to my example of Brazil in my first contention in my constructive. Societies without a means of having their government efficiently communicate with their people can not successfully implement a presumed consent system because they will likely face the same effects as Brazil. Moreover, this article notes, "Efficacy alone will not determine if presumed consent can be adopted in the United States. Understanding the cultural, societal, and political climate is also necessary to determine a solution to the rising shortage of organs." This strongly supports a framework of maximizing choice because it is noted that one must take into account a multitude of factors before deciding which system of organ donation to implement. This does not just apply to the United States, but to all societies. Looking at solvency alone, mandated choice or compulsory donation are likely to have the same (if not higher) amounts of organ donation, when compared to presumed consent. Again, look to my first contention where I specifically noted how unlikely it would be for presumed consent to raise rates of donation in countries like the USA, due to the value they place on autonomy. In order for pro's point to stand, he must show that presumed consent provides more *more* solvency than all of my counter plans.

Really, this is simply an extension of pro's first point, so I'll cross apply what I said about solvency. However, I would like to briefly touch on the example of Spain. Simini explains, "In 1989 the Spanish government invested heavily in the organisational structure of organ donation. They radically increased the number of donor coordinators and ensured that every hospital in Spain had its own coordinator. They commenced a continuous BSD audit throughout Spain and invested heavily in education and advertising. In addition they introduced a fee structure to reimburse hospitals that provide organ donors (2)." Pro has provided a correlation with Spain and high donation rates, yet no causation. With all these other factors promoting high rates of organ donation, there is no way to be sure that specifically presumed consent raised the donation rate.

Pro's point that a just society would communicate with the people about organ donation policies is completely irrelevant to this debate since it is non topical within the resolution. Also, look to the fact of providing for such education in virtually any society is going to cost a large amount. Certianly more than 200,000 euros, causing pro's point about the emonomy to be completely negated.

Here, pro stresses the importance of a donor having the final say in whether or not their organs should be donated. This argument is highly nonunique to presumed consent because mandated choice solves for exactly the same thing.

My Case

PC can back fire
Pro essentially drops my attacks on political conditions and explains that I have the burden to prove that my policies will not backfire. This is completely incorrect. Firstly, the resolution requires pro to defend presumed consent (and only presumed consent). Secondly, look to my framework of maximizing choice. Here I show that the success of a system depends on the needs and beliefs of a society. Obviously, compulsory donation is not going to work in *every* society; however, if it has potential to solve for problems in even one society, it should be seen as a viable counterplan. The same goes for all the potential plans I have provided. Most of his attacks on my contention pertain to my counterplans, so I'll get to these attacks below.

Other choices

forced donation
Pro drops this point and makes the claim that a just society wouldn't take such a drastic measure. Firstly, look to the potential benefit such a plan can have on societies with a huge need for organs. While this counterplan is certainly drastic, it is 100% ensured to alleviate organ shortages.

mandated choice
Firstly, pro made a point earlier on explaining that people under an opt in system may *want* to donate, but often don't want to make an effort to let their wishes be known. Look to the fact that mandated choice completely solves for this. For further clarification, mandated choice is a system which requires individuals to make a choice as to whether or not they want their organs donated, eliminating conflict by eliminating the need to "presume" anything, and eliminating conflict by making the individuals decision to donate or not to donate final. Pro seems to be attempting to tell the reader what mandated choice is. Look to the fact that even if this plan I have provided was different from traditional mandated choice, that wouldn't matter because the con can propose literally anything besides presumed consent.
Secondly, pro says absolutely nothing that suggests mandated choice could be ineffective. If we take his USA poll into account, there is no logical reason to believe that 76% of individuals would become organ donors under such a system.

organ sales
Pro gives absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests such a plan would be *less* effective than presumed consent in eliminating a black market. Presumed consent is not guaranteed to raise donation rates. Even if it were, presumed consent could never eradicate a waiting list for organs. Thus, individuals with need for organs are apt to turn to the black market and pay for organs. A safe and legal manner of obtaining organs through money without a waiting list will cause such a market to disappear. My Iran example can be extended to show the success of such a plan. I will note that I think pro did, to a certain extent, misunderstand this plan. The legalization of organ sales pertains to living donors, as does the black market.

Indeed the resolution has been negated.

2. Simini B. Tuscany doubles organ donation rates by following the Spanish example. Lancet. 2000;355:476
Debate Round No. 3


Jack here. Let's see what our good friend Debatability has to say.

Solvency: If the government cannot communicate well, then the most just policy is a policy that punishes the government for not communicating well with the public. If the government want more organ donation rates, then it should tell the public about organ donation instead of muddling the public and putting them in a bowl of obliviousness.

"Conceal don't feel don't let them know...well know they know....Let it go, let it go, can't hold it back any more..." --Elsa [BONUS: watch video]

We see here Elsa clearly knows what she's talking about. (Just a little joke, the quote here is only to make a point and summarize my argument) It makes sense. The government cannot conceal its facts along with presumed consent and expect this to be considered "just". The government has to release information, otherwise they'll receive loads and loads of complaints. With the hiding of such important information, the government wouldn't need an organ donation policy. People would be unwilling to donate organs even if they were required by law, since the government didn't serve its duty. People would revolt until the government released some law requiring classes that talk about organ donation, its problems, its benefits, all that important information. Thus this point is moot because within these governments, all the policies would be equally "just".

Economy: With the addition of all those other policies, Presumed consent is brought out to its best. Other countries must have similar policies too. Yet they can't reach Organ-donation-number-one, Spain. Presumed consent is best out of the bare policies by themselves if you don't have other quality services available. If you do, that's great. Then you can maybe even beat out Spain if you try to adopt its policies in a similar way.

Education: Education is education is education. The other policies would only be as just as presumed consent. We are assuming the same amount of education applies to the country, only different policies. For example, if a country does not educate its citizens about organ donation, it would be equally unjust for presumed consent to take place in comparison to manual consent. No information, no communication, equals unjust, regardless of the policy used. Thus all policies are tied here for being most just.

Family: So...? If my opponent really thinks mandated choice is the better option, then wouldn't it be more just for presumed consent to adopt as much fairness from M.C., rather than NOT have the donor have the final say?

PC can back-fire: Oh ho ho, no no no, you're quite inaccurate there Debatability. In order to prove presumed consent NOT the best policy there is, there has to be some other policy that works in more types of societies.

Other choices:
F.D.: It's indeed just for those that need organs, but it is not just for those that don't want to donate their organs. People need freedom of choice. Presumed consent is more just because now at least some people can reject giving their organs by saying so.

M.C.: "there is no logical reason to believe that 76% of individuals would become organ donors under such a system. "
Then there is no logical reason to believe that the other 24% will be able to tell the hospital they don't want to donate. The less frustration and hard-work, the more just! Majority rules!

O.S.: "Even if it were, presumed consent could never eradicate a waiting list for organs." Neither could organ sales...

"Thus, individuals with need for organs are apt to turn to the black market and pay for organs." What! How could the black market even get those organs! And why would people want to pay for organs when they get it free through presumed consent!

"A safe and legal manner of obtaining organs through money without a waiting list will cause such a market to disappear." Still, this system is unjust because the rich can obtain the organs, while those poor cannot. If the poor can at least get the organ for free, they at least have time to garner up money for the surgery if the threat is immediate. On the other hand, making organs worth money would give less time to immediate threats. In addition, since organs are worth money now, the so called "black market" would want to rob graves and illegally steal the organs. Legalizing organ sales creates a similar problem to not allowing organ donation OR sales at all. Very unjust if you ask me.

In conclusion, I have won this debate. I've countered every one of Debatability's plans, and constructed excellent cases for why Presumed Consent is the most just policy, while other policies may not be as just as P.C. in most cases, or even in some, merely tied as the most just policy. However, I wish this was 5 rounds; this was the most fun debate I've had in a long time. Debatability was a good and challenging opponent, and regardless of the outcome, I'd say this is one of my true debate favorites.
Side with Jack my friends, and vote pro.


Thanks to 9space for an interesting debate. I'll go over my opponent's arguments as well as my own, then provide some key voting issues.

Opponent's Case

Pro claims that if a government inadequately communicates with it's people, they should institute a policy that "punishes" them for it (i.e. presumed consent). The problem is, the government will not be punished in an instance were presumed consent is instituted under circumstances with bad communication between the government and the people; the citizens of the society are the ones that will ultimately be punished, due to their obliviousness, which pro even notes. Pro's argument that the government *cannot* conceal information about presumed consent from it's people doesn't add anything to his case because this argument brings up a flaw with presumed consent, rather than proving it's effectiveness. As shown through a maximizing choice framework, societies that lack in communication (or value autonomy) would be better off under a mandated choice system. A mandated choice system forces citizens to choose when they get their drivers licences (or some other method) thus eliminating the need for effective communication between the government and the people as well as the problems that come with it because everyone is asked what they want to do with their organs. Also, pro basically drops all my evidence pertaining to the unlikelihood of presumed consent working in various countries.

Spain's success with donation rates can be attributed to other factors, as I explained before. Pro's claim that presumed consent is the best policy to use in the absence of other factors is not backed up by valid statistics. If you, as a judge, don't buy this, look to the flaws within the opt out system that stop presumed consent from achieving higher donation rates than my counter plans that I have noted (and will continue to stress on) throughout my case.


Pro essentially furthers the argument he formed in rebuttal of the solvency point by explaining that some of the other plans I have proposed need a government that educates it's people. Look to the fact that two out of the three plans I have provided (organ sales and mandated choice) don't need a government that prioritizes education of the people because these plans do not involve "presuming" or "taking away" anything.

Presumed consent can't "adopt the fairness from mc" as pro claims. Presumed consent implies an opt out system which is what pro has to defend in this debate.

My Case

PC can backfire
Pro clearly misunderstands my burden within the round. In order for me to negate the resolution at hand, I can do two things. (a) i can poke holes in the presumed consent policy and (b) i can provide counterplans. I have adequately done both. Through my framework of mandated choice, it is apparent that one single system cannot solve for every societies needs. All I have to do is prove that all my counterplans combined, when instituted in the most fitting society, will work more effectively than presumed consent. Even if I hadn't done this, my contention on presumed consent backfiring is enough to negate, especially since pro dropped most of my examples.

Other choices

forced donation
This counter plan applies to only societies with a lower value on autonomy and a huge need for organs. To quote pro in the first round, "a just society would want to save more people than killing more people." and mandatory choice does just this. Obviously, the most just policy would be the one that works towards making a society more just, taking into account social/political/economic factors. Mandatory choice, in a fitting situation, is a just action and is guaranteed to raise donation rates.

mandated choice
Pro's attack that there is "no logical reason the other 24% won't be able to tell the hospital they don't want to donate" doesn't make any sense because under a mandated choice system, everyone is asked whether or not they want to donate. In fact, this problem as suggested by pro, should really be seen as a valid point for the con side, since I would agree that there is no logical reason to believe that individuals in a society with inadequate communication and a presumed consent system are likely to know whether or not to "opt out" of organ donation.

organ sales
Organ sales are more apt to decrease the waiting list for organs pertaining to living transplantation. Pro basically explains that people wouldn't turn to a black market when "presumed consent" will give it to them for free. This is completely untrue because (due to the length of the waiting list) people often have to resort to using financial incentives to obtain organs, thus organ sales provide a legal revenue of obtaining life saving organs. Pro stresses that organ sales are unjust because organs are only given to the rich. I'll make a few points.
Firstly, even if only the rich were obtaining organs, the waiting list for kidneys donated through transplants from the deceased would go down because rich people are obtaining more organs. Thus, poorer individuals are provided with a shorter waiting list.
in case that didn't make sense ill put this in a syllogism
P1: The waiting list is a list of everyone that needs organs.
P2: People who legally buy organs are taken off the waiting list.
P3: Organ sales will make the waiting list shorter.
Secondly, the black market exploits the poor and causes numerous issues in the developing world. A legal version of obtaining organs is highly preferable to the currently existing legal tactic.
Also, pro drops my Iran evidence in which I show the eradication of the black market via organ sales.


I'll just give some brief reasons as to why you should vote neg.
1. Presumed consent can backfire. It did in Brazil and it likely would in the USA. Presumed consent doesn't work in countries like France where families don't discuss organ donation, nor does it work in countries whose government's don't effectively communicate with their people.
2. My counterplans are more likely to be successful than presumed consent. I've shown empirical evidence that supports the legalization of organ sales, I've used pro's own case against him to further support mandatory choice, and I've shown mandated choice to be a more just option than presumed consent that can work in significantly more societies than presumed consent.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
But with her framework, justice is subjective, so every society is a "just society". In that way, she burdened you with having to show that the best possible option in every society. Obviously that's not a very fair framework, as you practically have no chance of winning under it, but you didn't contest it at all, so I as a judge have to go with it.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
If I lose this I'm going to flip out and kill Jack.
Either way I'm adding a rule to Jack's list to make him a more powerful debater:
-Jack will try to debate the nitty-gritty definitions and Burden of Proof if at all possible

Thanks for the vote anyways.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
JACK: *Frowns*.
well I did say that I only had to show that in more societies Presumed Consent was more effective than Debatability's options. Her options were indeed limited and effective in fewer amounts of societies in my opinion.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
A few general comments on the debate because I can't sleep.


Why the fvck did you not contest the framework!?

Letting your opponent completely dictate the direction of the debate is almost never a good idea. You could have made a very strong case that her interpretation of the resolution was abusive. You should have immediately rejected her whole idea about justice being subjective and varying from society to society, because that was what she used to impose such a huge BOP on you. There is a valid case to be made that justice must be universal and objective or else it becomes meaningless. Had you pushed for maximizing utility as being the most objective (i.e. best) criterion for justice (thus being universally applicable to all societies), then your aff case would have been perceived as much stronger, and you could have gotten by just showing that presumed consent generally generates more positive utility than debatability's counter-plans.

Forced donation-- easy refutation: it is a violation of people's freedom of religion, which is always beneficial to protect. The popular tension created by such a policy would clearly make presumed consent preferable to it. cross-apply Con's Brazil.

Mandated Choice-- there is really no substantive difference between this and presumed consent + making people aware of that presumption.

Organ sales-- honestly, this is a whole debate of it's own; you would have to stick with just a couple of the best arguments against it, which I feel are summarized nicely here:
My favorite one is that it could lead to the formation of a black market centered around organ harvesting.

With all that established, you could have safely claimed that presumed consent generates the maximum number of organ donations at the least cost (since only dumb people who don't know what's going on around them would be caught off-guard by it)

Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
JACK: I never reveal my full hand at once, Uchi. Be patient. I'm only going easy on her because I'm too good at serious debates.

me: ha, and you claim lost to Adam Godzilla.

JACK: and you were tempted to concede.

me: it was all part of the plot, all part of the ploy....I did trick you into doing pretty much that whole debate for me
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
This debate is making me cry...

There are so many rebuttals I want to make to Liz's case and 9Space isn't making any of them T.T
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Keep in mind that, I wasn't even Jack McGonnell when I beat Lannan.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
no no no, guys.

he conceded because he wanted to preserve debatability's pride. he didn't want to get such a new member get laughed off the site.

there is no paradox at all.
9space's ingenious method of determining debate skill continues to remain infallible.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago

of course :D
If I'm white enough for you, that is.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to show how P.C. is more desirable for a just system. Con raised three counter-plans in which more desirable systems could be utilized. This was also done with a good amount of empirical evidence that Pro seemed to fail at responding. This is seen in Pro's final rebuttals to Con's M.C. contention which he basically left standing unchallenged. For these reasons, I'm awarding arguments to Con. Sources - Tie. Con failed to present any actual sources in her first round even though she presented citation references like (1) - (9). Luckily, Pro failed to present stronger sources throughout when compared to the remainder of sources presented by Con. Due to the mishap in Con's first round though, this balances instead of giving Con the source points for higher quality.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, if you want to run multiple CPs, run a "truth-testing" theory shell. Otherwise, the fact that your counterplans contradict hurts you.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate ultimately came down to Con's framework and counter-plans. The way Con framed the debate (no objection by Pro), with justice subjectively varying from society to society, all she had to do was show that there are societies in which presumed consent would not be the most just choice (due to political conditions, cultural values, etc.). Pro's generic utility-centered case is mildly compelling, but given Con's framework and the way she set the burdens in the debate, it basically amounts to nothing, as he has to do much more than that (showing it to be generally beneficial) in order to fulfill the burden set upon him-- he must show that presumed consent is more just than all of Con's counter-plans in every feasible society. Predictably, he wasn't able to do that-- every counter-plan proved to be better then presumed consent in at least one type of society, effectively showing that a just society would not necessarily presume consent. Thus, I vote Con.