Everyone should donate their organs
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: rebuttals (no arguments)
Round 4: additional arguments and conclusion
*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.
Violation of Human Rights:
-Pro's suggested policy would mean violating a number human rights 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.
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.
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
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.
"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
-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.
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.
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.
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?"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 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:||0||5|
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.
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.