The Instigator
Dwint
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Everyone should donate their organs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,182 times Debate No: 48717
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Dwint

Pro

I will argue that everyone should donate their organs after they die. If you want to debate this leave a comment. I would like a serious debate.

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: rebuttals (no arguments)
Round 4: additional arguments and conclusion
Defro

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Dwint

Pro

If you are dead, you no longer exist as a person[1], so you can't own anything, including your body. The body is no longer yours, it's just a body with healthy organs and there are people who need those organs. So why shouldn't your organs be used to save others? Once you are dead, your body will never be of any use for you, just like your house, car or money. Even if you believe in the afterlife, your physical belongings will still have no value in the spirit world. All people leave their fortune to other when they die and there is nothing wrong in doing that, so why should donating your organs be different? For you they are not more important than your house or car. It is absolutely normal to leave your car or house to other people after you die and all people do it, so what is the problem with donating your organs? You have no right to your other possessions after you die and organs shouldn't be different. Also it's the easiest possible way to help people in need. All you have to do is sign a form.

[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Defro

Con

*Pro's arguments are specifically aimed towards donating organs to people in need of organs, therefore I will be arguing that not everyone should donate their organs after they die.
______________________________________________

Arguments Against:
______________________________________________

Violation of Human Rights:

-Pro's suggested policy would mean violating a number human rights[1] because it is suggesting and implying that individuals must have their organs donated after they die even if it goes against their wishes. This violates the 17th basic human right: the right to your own things. By violating the 17th human right, Pro's policy would also be violating the 30th human right: the right to keep your rights and not have others take them away.

-There are two other rights that are not on the list of 30 human rights that have been violated by Pro's suggested policy. The first is bodily autonomy and integrity. It states that one has the right not to have one's body or personhood interfered with, and that one also has the right to make one’s own choices about one’s body for oneself. The second right that has been violated by Pro's suggested policy is freedom of choice.

-In total, this violates 4 human rights.

1. http://www.samaritanmag.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.foregen.org...

4. http://prezi.com...
5. http://www.lawcookies.com...




Condition of Organs:


-Pro's suggested policy implies that all dying people should donate their organs to people in need of healthy organs. I would like to remind Pro that not all organs are healthy and well enough to be donated to other people, especially if the doners are dead or dying. If a person dies because his organs are infected, it is best not to donate his organs to people in need of organs because the organs would likely kill the recipient of the organs.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion:

Not everyone should donate their organs because some people don't want to and by forcing them to donate their organs after they die, you are violating 4 human rights. Though corpses do not have the capability of choice, their choice was already made before they died, when they had the capability to choose. Therefore if someone chooses not to donate their organs, but his organs are donated anyway after they die, you would still be violating human rights. Also, some organs are too dangerous or unhealthy to be donated, therefore not everyone should donate their organs.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Over to Pro
Debate Round No. 2
Dwint

Pro

I never said organ donation should be mandatory. "All you have to do is sign a form."- I argued that donation your organs is the right thing to do and everyone should do it, I never said everyone should be forced to donate their organs.

Of course not all organs are health, but most of the time you will have at least one healthy organ when you die. And even if you don't have any health organs, they will simply not use them. If you choose to donate your organs in means after you die medics will check to see if you have any healthy organs and if you do they will use them to help other.

CON missed my point completely and took the whole process out of context.
Defro

Con

Rebuttal:



"I never said organ donation should be mandatory...I argued that donation your organs is the right thing to do and everyone should do it, "


-If you say "everyone should do it", then you are obviously saying it should be mandatory. Allow me to define the term "should".


-Should: must; ought
http://dictionary.reference.com...

-Therefore by saying "everyone should do it", you are either saying "everyone must do it", or you are saying "everyone ought to do it", in which case my arguments still work for both statements.

-->If you are arguing that "everyone must do it", my arguments still stand. Why must they do it if they choose not to? Why must they do it if it means violating 4 human rights? Furthermore, why must they do it if their organs are not healthy?

-->If you are arguing that "everyone ought to do it", my arguments still stand. Why ought they do it if they choose not to? Why ought they do it if it means violating 4 human rights? Furthermore, why ought they do it if their organs are not healthy?


"Of course not all organs are health, but most of the time you will have at least one healthy organ when you die. And even if you don't have any health organs, they will simply not use them."

-Voters note the grammatical error(s) in this statement.

-Pro has conceded to my argument that not all organs are healthy and that people with unhealthy organs should not donate their organs because "they will simply not use them".



"If you choose to donate your organs in means after you die medics will check to see if you have any healthy organs and if you do they will use them to help other."

-Pro has conceded again that not all organs should be donated.


"CON missed my point completely and took the whole process out of context."

-I certainly did not.


Debate Round No. 3
Dwint

Pro

I won't continue debating this, You obviously just want to win it and you don't want to be reasonable about the topic. Should doesn't mean must, maybe this will help you understand the differences better : http://english.stackexchange.com...

Donating your organs means signing a form, giving doctors permission to use your organs after you die, it doesn't mean that after you die your organs will be used even if they are not healthy. This is not even an argument, as it is not possible to donate an unhealthy organ.

My opponent ignored the process of organ donation, acting like it doesn't exist and replaced "should" with "must", making this debate meaningless, as he is not willing to debate this topic in a reasonable way.
Defro

Con

Pro has not clarified his resolution.

Nevertheless, I still followed Pro's resolution when Pro clarified it in Round 3, so I am confused as to why Pro claims I am unreasonable. I will attempt to try again to appeal to Pro's preferences.



Rebuttal:


So in this round, this is what Pro says: "Donating your organs means signing a form, giving doctors permission to use your organs after you die". Pro is arguing that everyone should do this when in Round one he said: "I will argue that everyone should donate their organs after they die".

-Therefore, my argument still applies to this. Should someone still donate their organs even if they don't want to? Everyone has the freedom of choice and bodily integrity and autonomy, so everyone can choose what they want to do with their own bodies.


"My opponent ignored the process of organ donation, acting like it doesn't exist and replaced "should" with "must", "

-I did not replace the word "should" with "must", I defined the word should in Round 3 and based my arguments off of that. I even gave you two options to choose from as to what definition you wanted to use: one of them was "must", but the other one was "ought to". And I refuted that effectively in the previous round.

-Furthermore, my arguments still apply nevertheless: "Why should someone donate their organs if they don't want to?"
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Sweet! I got it! Thanks for picking me!
Posted by wwwwh 3 years ago
wwwwh
I would debate this but it seems there are people who want it more than me though I do promise to follow your rules.
Posted by Jayzeee 3 years ago
Jayzeee
I would like to debate this, as I need the practice for school. Pick me please
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 3 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
I'd accept if I could. Change the criteria so I can and I can promise a fair debate, following the structure you have given.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
I would like to debte this. Pick me please!
Posted by i_know_all_and_i_will_win 3 years ago
i_know_all_and_i_will_win
I will take it.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
I would like to debate this but I'm not whatever.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Right, and then nobody would vote for him, because that kind of wordplay is not "clever" but just stupid and counterproductive.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
While invisibledeity is an idiot he actually brought up an interesting point: A potential troll could get this debate and then through crafty wordplay defeat you by defining organs as the type of piano, not the body parts....
Posted by invisibledeity 3 years ago
invisibledeity
Not everyone HAS an ORGAN!! Only STUPID CHURCHES OF CHRSITIANITY!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
DwintDefroTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The generalization of "everbody" is a central point of the resolution. Burden of proof was on the instigator to give a reason why everybody should donate their organs. Con effectively countered with examples (unhealthy organs), and Pro conceded. Thus, arguments go to Con. Con used a wider variety of sources containing facts, so I grant him points for sources, too.