The Instigator
themonkeyman
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: The US Government Should Legalize Financial Incentives For Organ Donation

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/2/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,267 times Debate No: 15763
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

themonkeyman

Con

Hello, I will be speaking for the CON (negative) side of this topic.
Right now, there are thousands of people on waiting lists for organs. Some suggest that financial incentives will promote organ donations, saving lives. I am here to tell you that this is not true.
Available studies from countries that sanction or do not control kidney selling suggests that the lump sum that the sellers receive has their long term financial security, and many end up worse than before. This means incentives are not even benefiting the donor, which was their only purpose. There is absolutely no point in using them.
This is why I oppose the following topic:
Resolved: the US government would legalize financial incentives for organ donation.
I will discuss ethical issues, solvency, and alternatives to hopefully convince you to oppose this topic.
My first argument is Ethically.
Financial incentives will not work because it is unethical. The ultimate decision of donating is made by the people. If it is unethical, no one will do it.

First, Devaluating Human Life. According to The National Kidney Foundation, March 3, 2011, Direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation are inconsistent with our values as a society.
This means, by treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we seek to save.

Second, Strict Religions According to Life Science, Many religions are against giving away organs, whether the person is deceased or alive. This means, those in the religious groups would not support organ transplantation, decreasing the amount of organ supply.

Therefore, financial incentives are unethical.

My next argument is solvency

Financial Incentives will lead to less organ donations.

First, Dismisses Altruistic Donors. According to, Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Nov 2006, Kidney selling would distort and undermine the altruism and common citizenship on which our whole organ donation system currently relies. This means, organ trade would be easily corrupted destroying the values that we lived on. Incentives would not increase the number of donors. It will cause all altruistic donors leave, causing a greater organ shortage than ever before.

Second, Corrupt Health System. According to, The National Kidney Foundation, March 3, 2011, public opinion polls and focus groups have disclosed that many Americans are not inclined to be organ donors because they distrust the U. S. health care system. A program of financial incentives for organ donation is not likely to change these perceptions and, indeed, may aggravate mistrust. This means, because of our previous corruption in our health care system, no one will trust these financial incentives.

Therefore, financial incentives will not work, and will lead to fewer donations

My Next argument is alternatives.

There are alternatives to financial incentives. We do not need incentives.

There is technology, today, that can regenerate organs. According to Harvard University, we can take tissue from a damaged organ, such as a urethra or a blood vessel, split the organ into different cell types. With these cells, we can grow, and duplicate organs using molds. We can use the molds and scaffolds to make organs, and then insert it inside the patient. Soon, the scaffolding can degrade, leaving the patient a flawless new organ. In just months, we will be able to heal patients.
Next, Presumed Consent. According to, 2010; Gale Group Databases, a possible way to eliminate the organ shortage is to "presume consent" Unless they indicated their refusal beforehand; their organs will be used for the good of humanity. This means… This preserves the value of transplantation as a social good, with no one included or excluded on the basis of financial status.
Therefore: There are alternatives to financial incentives that will promote donations.

This is why we should not support the topic

So for all these reasons, please vote for the CON
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con.

My opponent's arguments against financial incentives for organ donation are as follows...

A) Ethics: Organ Donation is Unethical

1. The ultimate decision of donating is made by the people. If it is unethical, no one will do it.

I agree, though I don't see how this proves that organ donation is unethical. If anything it's a contention in my favor, because it suggests that financial incentives will not corrupt people to donate organs for the wrong reasons. In fact this negates some of Con's other contentions as well. Also, this contention couldn't be taken seriously because of the word "all" used. Clearly people do unethical things. Either people don't care that they're acting unethically, or what is unethical can be considered subjective. Regardless this contention doesn't affirm the premise that organ doning for money is unethical.

2. Direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation are inconsistent with our values as a society. It devalues human life.

Con warns against treating the body as property; however, treating the body as property is what we do all the time philosophically. For instance we suggest that we have the right to our personhood, and we can do what we want with our own bodies because they are "our property." For instance if I wanted a tongue piercing, I can claim "I own myself" or that nobody else has authority over me, as stating contrary constitutes slavery. As such, I contend that we can treat our values as "property" and doing so would not be immoral or unethical. I say this notion is very consistent with our values in society.


3. Many religions are against giving away organs, whether the person is deceased or alive. This means, those in the religious groups would not support organ transplantation, decreasing the amount of organ supply.

It doesn't matter if certain religious people are against it. Those people are free to make the choice not to sell their organs. Also, this doesn't prove whatsoever that organ donations will decrease, because clearly those who are already against organ donation for religious reasons are already not donating regardless of the legality of selling organs.

None of these points have proved that selling organs is unethical.

B) Solvency: Financial Incentives will lead to less organ donations.

1. Kidney selling would distort and undermine the altruism and common citizenship on which our whole organ donation system currently relies. Incentives would cause all altruistic donors leave, causing a greater organ shortage than ever before.

Con must explain or prove this to be true; he cannot just assert it as fact. Why would people stop doing good things just because other people have different incentives to do the same thing?

2. A program of financial incentives for organ donation is likely to aggravate mistrust with the U.S. health care system.

Con explained that there is already mistrust within the health care system, but provides no evidence that financial incentives would increase these notions. Also, he says that nobody will trust the financial incentives, but so what? All that means is that people would choose not to get money in return if they choose to donate. If they choose not to donate then it's no different than it was before. Con is also once again making a mass generalization by saying nobody will trust the system.

Con hasn't proven that financial incentives will not work and lead to fewer donations.

C) Alternatives: There are alternatives to financial incentives. We do not need incentives.

1. There is technology that can regenerate organs.


While this is true, we are extremely limited in this regard due to great Republicans like George W. Bush who wish to inhibit stem cell research and refuse investing in this type of life-saving technology. Also, this is clearly not an option for all individuals and organs.

2. Presumed consent is an option. Unless they indicated their refusal beforehand, their organs will be used for the good of humanity.

You can implement a similar alternative and yet still allow for financial exchange of organ donation. For instance some organs can be donated while some can be purchased. Also consider something like a kidney where you can live with just one. An individual should be able to sell one if that's their prerogative, and receive financial incentives for themselves while they are still living.

Even though there are alternatives to financial incentives that will promote donations, financial donations do not hurt the process and can in fact likely help. With that said, here are some of my opening offensive arguments...

*************************************************************************

The human body belongs to the person who possesses it inherently. It is for all intents and purposes akin to "property" in that forced authority over another is slavery or immoral. If one wants to provide compensation to another in exchange for their organ, the person has the right to exercise authority over their own body and sell an organ. If the exchange is mutual, the law should exist to protect the rights of the individual to make that trade - not prohibit it.

There are many reasons one might choose to sell an organ. Likewise there are many reasons one chooses to sell their eggs or sperm. We are also allowed to sell blood, bone marrow and plasma [1, 2]. Why should those be legal but organ selling not legal? In the case of selling eggs or sperm, you're literally creating a life for money. So why is that okay, but saving a life for money is not okay? Con should answer these questions.

Additionally, most of the time these procedures are very safe and effective [3, 4] so I see no reason to criminalize a fair trade with significant benefits and minimal harm. We know that despite the success of organ transplants, organ donations are going down which is costing millions of lives [5]. Meanwhile, selling organs can provide mutual benefits to both the recipient and donor. If cash incentives are permissible, people will give this option serious consideration if they find it to be incredibly useful and valuable to them in their own lives.

Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to rethink the option which will most likely save many lives. Con must explain why this logic is invalid and/or immoral. He must also explain why the government should have the right and authority to control people's bodies and how they act and trade. Also, keep in mind that noting the government has the power to do this is not the same as arguing why they should do this.

Finally on this point, people could write in their will that they'd like to sell their organs upon their death to help pay for funeral costs or leave as money for their family. This is good for the economy as it contributes to purchasing things on the market, paying off debts, and can even be taxed by the government via estate tax (or not). Either way, this is a legitimate and useful option for many needy families.

[1] http://www.marrow.org...
[2] http://www.biolifeplasma.com...
[3] http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk...
[4] http://www.summitforlife.org...
[5] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
themonkeyman

Con

First, I would like to refute my opponent's arguments.

A. It is a person's own choice on what to do with his/her body.
Although a person should be able to do whatever he chooses, the ban on financial incentives are placed for the good of everyone. From studies in available countries, most donors receive MUCH less than they deserve. The ones most likely to go for financial incentives would be the poor. Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. Since the poor and disadvantaged have been shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation are manipulation and exploitation (The National Kidney Foundation, 2011)

B: We sell blood, bone marrow, etc, so why not organs?

Should something like blood and an important organ like…the kidney be treated the same? NO! For one, blood regenerates, and quickly too. Extracting blood is quick and easy. With a kidney, the extraction process has a chance to damage the patient’s life forever.

C: Transplants are safe and effective. We are sacrificing millions of lives by banning incentives
According to the LA Times March 13, 2011, transplants fail 60% of the time. They are not safe, and not at all effective. We also have evidence, from the National Kidney Foundation, March 3, 2011, that states: In a recent survey of families who refused to donate the organs of their deceased, 92% said that financial incentives would not have persuaded them to do so. This is 92%!

D: Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to donate.
We have evidence that 90% of donations are to the donor’s family and friends. With the legalizing of incentives, someone will have much more difficulty asking his brother for a kidney, when his brother could have sold it…for maybe $90,000. This will not at all solve the organ crisis. It would only change from the receivers being the first in line, to receivers having the most money.

E: People can use benefits for funeral costs or leave money to their family.
Yes, that would be the ideal outcome of financial incentives. However, if financial incentives are legalized, there is no doubt that people will interpret it in other ways: the legalization of the buying and selling of organs. This will quickly turn into a market. “The risk of slipping from incentives into a market is too big to take. We’ve just been though two years of complete economic collapse at the inability to regulate markets because people cut corners, cheat [and] are not forthcoming. And there’s no reason to think a market in organs would work any differently.” [Live Science, August, 10, 2009]

Now I will defend and extend my own contentions.

You said that incentives are not wrong. However, providing any form of compensation for organs may be an affront to the thousands of donor families and living donors who have already made an altruistic gift of life and it could alienate Americans who are prepared to donate life-saving organs out of humanitarian concern. Paying for organs will be insulting the thousands of people who donated their organs, or even gave up their lives to save lives, purely out of concern

B: Financial incentives do not solve.

You said that I have no proof that incentives will decrease the number of donors. But you do not have any evidence that incentives will actually increase donations. As I stated earlier, 92% of people will not be persuaded by incentives. According to USA Today June 26, 2006, policymakers are unwilling to experiment with market incentives until researchers can show them that financial incentives would increase the supply of organs. It still has not been proven that using financial incentives will raise the number of available kidneys.

C: Alternatives

You said that organ regeneration is not an option. However, this technology is new. It is just beginning to rise. The research is being done by Harvard University, and about 10 people have already benefitted from them

If assumed consent is applied, we just will not need financial incentives, which are obviously harmful. In places like Europe, their organ shortage is minimal, because 90% of their population is or will be an organ donor.

So for all these reasons, please vote for the CON.

Thank you.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Re: A person can do what they choose with their own body.

Con begins, "Although a person should be able to do whatever he chooses, the ban on financial incentives are placed for the good of everyone." This is a contradictory statement. Con cannot say that a person should be able to do whatever they choose, but then say that they shouldn't be able to a second later. Further Con never explains how or why this is or the good of everyone. I also contend that it's not for the good of the willing buyer and seller. If I wish to sell a kidney for a million dollars, then Con cannot say "it's for my own good" that the government prohibits this transaction. The individual should be able to make personal decisions about their own body that do not inflict upon the rights of others.

Con also says that most donors receive less than they deserve. Of course value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. Con also contends that offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. I fail to see why this is a problem and in fact view it as a positive. This is an option (for those who are willing) to make money and help save lives simultaneously. Personally, even though I definitely could us the money, I would not be willing to sell my organs unless for a substantial amount of money. If this could really help me, Con is only hurting me - and the recipient - by prohibiting this.

So far, Con hasn't proven that a person should not be able to do what they please with their own person.

Re: We sell blood, bone marrow, etc, so why not organs?

Con writes, "Should something like blood [and a kidney] be treated the same? ... With a kidney, the extraction process has a chance to damage the patient's life forever." First, it doesn't matter if one process is more dangerous than another. Patients choose to have plastic surgery for shallow reasons despite the risks, even causing some to die [1]. If those risky procedures are still available, this type of surgery should be an option too. Second, Con completely ignored the most paramount aspect of this contention. In the last round I pointed out that people CREATE life for money (egg and sperm donation), though Con is suggesting we shouldn't be able to SAVE lives for money. Con must justify this hypocrisy.

Re: Transplants are safe and effective.

Con provides a statistic from the L.A. Times; however, upon searching the web I could not locate the source. I'd like Con to please provide a link or cited source proving his statistic. Nevertheless, his criticisms are as follows: First, that transplants are not too safe and fail 60% of the time. This general figure does not apply to all kinds of transplants. According to the Mayo Clinic, a liver transplants carries a risk to the donor's life of less than 1 percent, and it's just just 0.03 for a kidney [2].

Moreover, this procedure is just as risky as surrogate motherhood and yet that is legally available for purchase. Furthermore, this only suggests that organ donating is not successful -- not that it shouldn't be available for money. Once again, a buyer and consumer are responsible for understanding the risks of a particular trade. The potential danger only increases the value of the procedure.

Second, Con mentions that 92% of families who chose not to donate their loved one's organs said that financial incentives would not have persuaded them to do so. This is completely and utterly irrelevant and in fact and in fact a contention in my favor. As I explained in the last round, those who are morally opposed to this procedure or who do not think it is worth the risk will simply not participate in these kinds of transactions. It's no different than saying those who are against abortions should not seek them, or those who don't like Cheese Doodles do not have to buy them.

Re: Money will sway people from donating.

Con provides a scenario in which one does not donate their kidney to a family member because they choose to sell it for money instead. I see no problem with this. In both situations, someone in need of a kidney receives a kidney. Just because the family member doesn't get it doesn't make the act any less helpful.

Re: People can us the money to pay for funerals and other expenses.

Here Con did not respond to the concept of funerals one iota. Instead he suggested that a market for organs would arise, to which I would completely agree and argue as a good thing. I'll use this opportunity to expand on why a market for organs would be helpful...

In Takes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts Are Morally Imperative, author James Taylor advocates using markets to increase the supply of organs available for transplantation [3]. In a 2004 journal article, economist Alex Tabarrok argues that allowing organ sales, and elimination of organ donor lists will increase supply, lower costs and diminish social anxiety towards organ markets [4]. The Economist argued that if 0.06% of Americans between 19 and 65 were to sell one kidney, the national waiting list would disappear - which is exactly what happened in Iran [5]. Again, why is saving lives a bad thing?

Next, Con attempts to defend his own contentions. He begins by saying that financial incentives for donors would insult those who donated strictly out of humanitarian concern. I don't see why. I pointed out in the last round that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. While one's motives might be more selfish than another's, the original donor made the decision to give for free and that was good deed they should stand behind. They lose nothing from legalizing this policy.

Con's next argument is that I have no evidence that incentives will increase the number of donors. However, Con himself completely contradicted his own argument a few paragraphs earlier. In point D, he wrote - and I quote - "Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to donate." Further there is indeed evidence that incentives will definitely drastically increase the number of available kidneys as evidenced by the Iranian example and the laws of supply and demand.

Con writes, "You said that organ regeneration is not an option." I actually said it wasn't an option in all or many procedures, which is why we need to seriously consider financial incentives for people in need. If you were dying, and somebody wasn't willing to give you their kidney but agreed to sell it to you, wouldn't you want the option to establish this trade legally?

Con's final point is at if assumed consent is applied, it will disregard the need for organ donation. This is completely false. First, many people will likely choose to take away consent for religious or moral reasons. Second, this completely disregards my point that this can benefit those who are willing and who wish to sell an organ while they are alive.

In conclusion of this round, my opponent hasn't proven that organ donation is unethical or more dangerous than other legalized procedures (for money). Meanwhile, I've proven my proposal as both practical, effective and morally superior, as it respects an individual's personal freedoms. Thank you.

[1] http://articles.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.aynrand.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://econjwatch.org...
[5] http://www.economist.com...
Debate Round No. 2
themonkeyman

Con

A: A person can do what they choose with their own body.

Pro says I never explained how the ban was placed for the good of everyone. I did, and now I will explain it even further, because, clearly, you didn't understand me the first time around.
The ban is placed because not all people are kind and just. Are you so selfish that the only thing you want is to make a million dollars, and stand by while the poor and disadvantaged are preyed upon?
We have evidence that the poor are the ones most likely to be exploited. The ban was placed to prevent this from happening. True, some people will lose the chance or making a few thousand bucks, but this will prevent lives from being destroyed by organ traders.

Pro also said that exploitation of the poor was not a problem. I quote, "Con also contends that offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. I fail to see why this is a problem"
You are saying that "an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation" is not a problem?! EXPLOITATION IS, MOST CERTAINLY, A PROBLEM!!!
Exploitation is defined as: the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain. The rich is taking unfair advantage of the poor, for their own and ONLY their own gain.

Pro said value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for.
However, it says, in US News, that most of these people get paid less than they actually wanted, and less than what the deal was.

Pro said unable to find my source. You cannot find everything online!
Also, apart from my 60% failure evidence, we have evidence from TransplantLiving.org that states that 35% of transplants fail within the first five years. This, on top of the 60% surgery failure, puts organ transplantation at about a 20-30% success rate. THIS IS NOT SAFE!

Pro says that my evidence, which said that 92% of America does not want incentives, is irrelevant.
You are saying that financial incentives will lessen organ shortages. Obviously, the only way this will happen is if people actually want incentives! I'm saying that 92% DON'T want incentives, meaning that legalizing them will not do much to solve our crisis.

PRO said "In both situations, someone in need of a kidney receives a kidney. Just because the family member doesn't get it doesn't make the act any less helpful."
You are saying that selling it will be just as helpful as donating it to a friend. This is not true. If this occurred, organs will only go to the wealthiest, instead of going to those who were in line first.

Pro just agreed that markets are a good thing. However, I have evidence that states that "the risk of slipping from incentives into a market is too big to take. We've just been though two years of complete economic collapse at the inability to regulate markets because people cut corners, cheat [and] are not forthcoming. And there's no reason to think a market in organs would work any differently."
Because we cannot regulate markets properly, they could be dangerous for both the donor and the recipient.
Danielle

Pro

== Rebuttal ==

Under the headline "A person can do what they choose with their own body," Con begins making his argument which has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument that a person can choose what to do with their own body. As such, I'm going to make a list of entirely dropped arguments to post at the conclusion of this round, so the audience can have a clear picture of my points that were never clearly addressed.

Con begins, "The ban is placed because not all people are kind and just." Notice that not everybody being kind and just is not a reason whatsoever to keep the selling of organs illegal. Not everyone is kind and just, but you can still sell cars. You can sell all kinds of things. I don't see how this is relevant at all. Con continues, "Are you so selfish that the only thing you want is to make a million dollars, and stand by while the poor and disadvantaged are preyed upon?" This sentence literally makes no sense whatsoever. First, it's poor conduct for Con to call me selfish and to make assumptions about what I would do in any situation. I'm merely here to debate a particular side of a resolution. Second, it's not true that the poor would be "preyed upon" in any way and Con hasn't explained as such. It's true that poor people would probably not be able to afford organs, but it's no different than how poor people cannot afford to seek the best possible medical care and treatment while others can.

Con writes, "We have evidence that the poor are the ones most likely to be exploited." The poor would not be exploited. Poor people could choose not to sell their organs and live just how they are now. Or, one could sell another's organs after they die, in which case the money could be used to help the poor family. In that way this HELPS the poor. I've explained this in the last round. Con responded, "True, some people will lose the chance of making a few thousand bucks, but this will prevent lives from being destroyed by organ traders." Con failed to explain how organ traders would destroy lives rather than save them. Again I'm not suggesting the impoverished should be solicited to sell their organs, but if that's what they freely choose (or choose to have happen upon their death) then that's their prerogative. There's a difference between coercion and force. People are free to make their own choices.

Also, poor people have to deal a lot of crappy things. A rich person buys a McDonald's and does nothing but pays a poor person $8 an hour to flip burgers while the owner sips pina coladas by their pool. Isn't that "exploitation" according to my opponent's definition? Isn't that the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation for personal gain? The rich pays the poor bare minimum to do all the work just so the rich can make a higher profit. Of course that fits the definition perfectly. But would Con suggest that this practice be ended too? Or should he accept the fact that people are exploited constantly throughout our every day lives and thus particularly value freedom?

Con writes, "Pro said value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. However, it says in US News that most of these people get paid less than they actually wanted, and less than what the deal was." First, I'd appreciate a source. Second, if they don't get what they were supposed to get then that's a legal issue in which these people deserve legal protection and compensation for their loss in the trade. This is exactly why organ selling should be legal: because this is a valid market transaction and should be kept off the black market to ensure that the law can protect people's rights and uphold contracts and other agreements.

Regarding sources, Con writes, "Pro said unable to find my source. You cannot find everything online!" Con can feel free to quote a non-online source, but he didn't properly cite anything so I am not able to double check or fact check his statistics. This is important because we have conflicting statistics. Since mine have been properly cited and readily available for the audience, mine should without a doubt be considered more than his.

Con continues, "I'm saying that 92% DON'T want incentives, meaning that legalizing them will not do much to solve our crisis." First, there's still an 8% that would have their mind's changed and thus this would help regardless. Second, that is not at all what my statistics say, and again the audience is free to go back to R2 and check out my numbers and sources compared to Con's. He completely dropped (which I will mention later) all of my statistics from The Economist and other places indicating that financial incentives would absolutely encourage more organs being donated.

Con writes, "If this occurred, organs will only go to the wealthiest, instead of going to those who were in line first." However Con never explained why this is wrong. In our society, most things are optional for the wealthy first. If Con has an issue with this then he has an issue with capitalism itself. Why is a first-come, first-serve basis necessarily more moral? Perhaps John is first on the list but is a convicted rapist. And perhaps Mary Sue is last but she's a children's volunteer. Also, there are lots of ways to get around poor people being glossed over, such as insurance, government health care, loans and payment plans or other options.

In conclusion, Con writes "Because we cannot regulate markets properly, they could be dangerous for both the donor and the recipient." This is absurd. By that logic we shouldn't have a market for anything and our entire economy/society would collapse. Moreover what needs to be regulated? The only thing that needs to happen is that trade agreements and contracts are enforced, to ensure both people get what they want and expected to get out of the transaction.

== Dropped Arguments ==

1. A person has the right to do what they please with their own body.

2. Con dropped the point about how other surgeries such as plastic surgery or surrogate mothers are just as dangerous if not more-so than organ donation, negating his rebuttal for why plasma should be able to be sold but not kidneys.

3. Con never answered why we should be able to create life for money but not save life for money.

4. Con ignored the fact that my statistic destroyed his. He said transplants fail 60% of the time but is completely unable to provide a source for this; I provided a source stating otherwise (for example liver transplants only fail 1% of the time, and for kidney's it's far less).

5. I said those who were against these procedures or policies need not engage, just like pro-life people need not have abortions. If donating organs is more important to them, they can donate instead of sell. If people are willing to sell and people are willing to buy, a legal market should absolutely exist.

6. Con dropped my statistic from The Economist. Please extend.

7. Regarding humanitarian concern, I pointed out that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. Con dropped this contention.

8. Con dropped the argument that organ donation would increase if there were financial incentives. He can't just say "that's not true;" he has to provide arguments or evidence against my analysis and cited sources.

9. Con dropped the point about how donation and not regeneration is most practical or possible in many situations.

10. Con dropped the point about "automatic consent" and my subsequent criticisms.

Please extend these and any other dropped arguments I may have missed.


Debate Round No. 3
themonkeyman

Con

themonkeyman forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

According to his profile, my opponent was online recently yet chose to not submit a final round for this debate. In the last round I provided a detailed rebuttal and clear list of all the contentions of mine that my opponent dropped. Please extend them. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
themonkeymanDanielleTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro, due to cons forfeit, also convincing arguments due to the fact that con dropped almost all of the big ones. Also to cancel out eibs vote bomb.
Vote Placed by eib10202 6 years ago
eib10202
themonkeymanDanielleTied
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: con better
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
themonkeymanDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeit