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

The U.S. federal government should permit the sale of human organs.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,658 times Debate No: 19101
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




No semantics. The topic is pretty straight forward though. I am negating the resolution, which is The United States Federal Government should permit the sale of human organs.

First round is acceptance. CX is permitted.


Good luck, I hope this can be a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting.

"Once you insert monetary gain into the equation of organ donation, now you have a market. Once you have a market, markets are not controllable, markets are not something you can regulate, The problem with markets is that rich people would descend upon poor people to buy their organs, and the poor don't have any choice about it." –Francis Delmonico

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should permit the sale of Human Organs. I negate. I offer the following observation: A government has an obligation to act in the best interest of its citizens, and if organ markets are shown to have net-negative effects either practically or ethically than the U.S. government has not only the right to, but an obligation to suppress them.

Contention one: Organ Markets are unethical.

  1. A. Organ Markets lead to the commodification of Humans.

When you allow people to sell their organs, you’re assigning a value to them. When you open up the doors to human commodification, it is not something you can shut. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Medical Anthropologist at Berkeley[i] Elaborates:

“Markets are inclined to reduce everything—including human beings, their labor and their reproductive capacity—to the status of commodities, things that can be bought, sold, traded, and stolen. And nowhere is this more dramatically illustrated than in the current markets for human organs and tissues to supply a medical business driven by "supply and demand. Bodily holism and integrity have given way to the divisible body and detachable organs as commodities, and as fetishized objects of desire and of consumption.”

We must ask ourselves the question, where do we draw the line? Surely none of us want to live in a kind of society where humans are treated as a means to an end, and creating a market for humans causes this.

Richard Demme writes[ii]:

“The point is, that if everyone accepts that organs are commodities like anything else that could be bought or sold, then organs could be treated like other things of value that we barter. In such a system, it would be logical that creditors might have a say about what happens to your assets. If you list your organs along with the rest of your assets, others might have a claim on them, and that is morally repugnant.”

If we allow organs to become commodities, how could it be considered unjust for a bank to demand a kidney to repay a loan? Similarly, if we legalize the organ market, how can we avoid such a consequence? Commodification is a huge impact, because it fundamentally changes not only the way we view our fellow humans, but it potentially changes the legal precedent of society. It certain causes the judiciary to have to ponder very complex ethical questions of self-autonomy and intrinsic rights.

  1. B. A market would exploit the poor.

We can look to the failed Organ market in India as proof of this point. Before India banned the organ trade, the poor were being exploited. Sandhya Srinivasan reports[iii]:

“..organ trafficking involves societal and global issues that must be discussed within the broader paradigm of global injustices, It must be a debate about communities of one kind of people being systematically exploited by communities of other kinds, both internationally and internationally. This is exploitation of the worst kind, where you want to remove a body part of the poor to help a rich man survive,’’

In regards to Organs sold illegally, Albert Huebner states[iv]:

“… the circulation of kidneys follows the routes of traditional colonialism: from South to North, East to West, poorer to more affluent bodies, black and brown bodies to white ones, female to male, or poor, low-status men to more affluent men. Women are almost never the recipients of purchased organs.”

Essentially, with an organ market what you have is the wealthy coercing the poor into selling a vital organ, which is a massive injustice and dehumanizes our underclasses. Unless we want to accept the poor as intrinsically less valuable than the wealthy, we can’t affirm.

Contention two: An Organ market crowds out altruism.

It’s likely that a market will not even increase the amount of organs available. Arthur Caplan writes[v]:

“If this country were to allow financial incenives for organs, the money would presumably go to the family or the deceased’s designee. But if these people have their hand on the life-support plug and know they stand to make good money as soon as the owner of the valuable body parts is dead, how hard are they going to try to keep that owner alive? While offering money for organs might persuade a few more to donate, it is more likely to turn off those now willing to consider giving out of fear or knowing there’s a reward for their death.”

Selling organs decreases the altruism of an actual donation. Alastair Campbell states[vi]:

“It has been argued that the supply of organs will increase with an organ market, resulting in more lives saved. This is debatable, given that an organ trade may reduce altruistic donation (of both live and cadaveric organs) and will attract predominantly the poor who may provide marginal organs for transplantation.”

This hypothesis is supported by UCLA Medical doctors Danovitch & Leichtman[vii]:

“If kidneys could be bought, particularly if the government or an insurance entity was paying, then the temptation or even demand not to expose the potential altruistic donor to the risk that is intrinsic to the process could be overwhelming; and it is not only altruistic living kidney donation that could suffer. The approach to recently bereaved family members, an already extraordinarily difficult and profoundly sensitive task, could be made considerably more difficult by their knowledge that organs could be purchased for large sums of money and the bodies of their loved ones let undisturbed.

Thus I urge a Con vote.


i. Scheper-hughes, Nancy. "The Global Traffic in Human Organs", 2001.

ii. Demme, Richard. "Ethical Concerns of an Organ market"


iv. Huebner, Albert. "Organ Snatchers" June 23rd, 2005.

v. Caplan, Albert. “Cash For Kidneys? Sales Won’t Widen Donor Pool.” June 25th, 2008.

vi. Campbell, Alastair V. "No such thing as ethical organ market" July 9th, 2008.

vii. M. Danovitch, Gabriel & B. Leichtman, Alan. “Kidney Vending: The “Trojan Horse” of Organ Transplantaion.”



I will firstly establish my case and then attack my opponent's case.

I. Humans have the right to sell their organs. Thomas Jefferson once said, "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?" Organ selling is not affecting society and it is not effecting each person's pocket. It is not causing people to die- in fact, it is saving lives. Martin Wilkinson, former chairman of the New Zealand Bioethics Council, stated "selling an organ should no longer be a criminal offence" and that "punishing people for trying to sell their organs ... infringes on a right to decide what to do with one's own body"People have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. If someone wants to sell an organ, that is their decision, and no matter how poor that decision is, it isn't effecting anyone except that person and the person whose life has just now been saved.

II. Organ selling saves lives. According to Santa Clara University, only 10,000 in 100,000 organ transplants needed are actually performed- roughly 10%. That means the other 90,000 aren't getting the organs they need to sruvive. 90,000 people are dying every year, and we could almost entirely get rid of it if just .02% of people sold an organ (90,000 divided by the number of American people). Even if just .005% of Americans sold an organ, 22500 lives would be saved. David E. Jefferies stated, "A new system is needed, one that commercializes organs in a global network. By allowing people to contract for the exchange of organs for monetary consideration, the market opens up financial incentives that increase the available supply of organs.". This shows that by giving people reason to sell their organs, more and more organs will be available and thus deaths will be reduced. By banning the sale of organs, we are effectively commiting homicide.

III. The government should not be involved in moral issues, unless the moral issues concern life and money lost because of someone else. The American people are more and more agreeing with this- according to a gallup poll, the nation in 2006 was divided at 48% and 48% over whether or not the government should promote moral values. This is up from the 38% and 60% (Where the 38% thought the government should NOT promote moral values) that there was in 1996. People are more and more agreeing with our founding fathers- the founding fathers envisioned a land where we could be free and act as we wanted. They envisioned a land where we could be free, with a government that stayed out of moral and religious issues like these and instead worked on issues that actually harmed others, physically or economically.;;;

Now onto my opponent's case-

C1- As I stated in my third contention, the government isn't about "ethics".
A. We wouldn't be assigning a value to someone significantly more than we already are. Right now, we already do assign values People like President Obama and Bill Gates are considered to have a higher societal value than people who work at Mc Donalds and Burger King. In terms of monetary value, someone with a PHD gets paid much more than someone with just a high school diploma. A pricetag on organs also wouldn't change much from person to person- of course the person buying the organ would only buy a good organ, so most of the values would be the same. As for my opponent's argument about banks demanding a kidney to repay a loan- a kidney would only be a commodity if it is up for sale. In that area, the bank wouldn't demand a kidney to repay a loan because it violates liberties even more than banning the sales of organs. They cannot take you against your will to a hospital. They could offer it as an option in order to pay back loans, but that would just be a benefit to our economy rather than a detriment to someone's liberty.

B. The market wouldn't "exploit" the poor- the market would help the poor become less poor. As I stated, if someone wants to sell an organ, it is their own decision. Also my opponent's quote from Sandhya Srinvisan is about India- this is about the U.S.. When the kidney sale was banned, the poverty level was between 42 and 60%. That is a lot more poor than we have in the U.S.- and the true "rich" in India are more like our American middle class. In America, there aren't enough poor to exploit- everyone is looking for a little extra cash, and everyone who is dying would pay anything to live.

Your point about altruism isn't very relevent- our economy is driven by selfishness. That is how capitalism works, and how we suceed. Even donating an organ isn't done altruistically- sometimes its because YOU don't want to lose your family, or because YOU want to feel better aobut yourself. The difference here is that selling an organ that you don't need gives YOU money for survival.

Also, altruism isn't a real reason why the U.S. Government should not permit the sales of organs- the government shouldn't outlaw things that people do for selfish reasons- because then, most of the things we do would be illegal.;
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for the reply. Things have come up in real life that have restricted my time, but I will more than likely have the time to finish this.

I'll attack my opponents case, then move on to defend mine.

I. We have a right to sell our organs

--> Umm, no. Legally, the sale of human organs has been banned in the U.S. since 1984.

--> My impacts otweigh. Sorry, but dehumanizing people into commodities outweighs the libertarian notions of absolute liberty.

--> Refer to my framework (which has been dropped.) The government has an obligation to suppress organ markets.

--> The American public seems to disagree. I know, I know, ad populum fallacy, but I contend that since rights are something that society determines my opponents argument falls if it's shown that people dont view organ selling as a right. Here's a poll: Only about 1 in 3 supports an organ market[1].

--> My Opponent hasn;t really made any logical arguments in support of this. He merely asserts that we have this right.

--> The value of life is undermines by organ selling. The kidney foundation writes[2]:

"By treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we seek to save."

--> No impact argued, who cares?

II. Saves lives

--> Non unique. I offer three counter-plans.

1. (main plan): Fix the ineffective system. Jeremy Chapman writes in 2010 that when considering organ markets [3]:

"You should take a long hard look at those 85,000 people who are registered in the US organ transplant system – a large number are never deemed fit enough actually to be transplanted by the listing transplant programme. Some 2,700 kidneys were discarded in the US last year – so the first place to make changes is in the efficiency of US systems."

Scheper-Hughes argues something similar, stating[4]:

"Sadly, however, the discourse on scarcity conceals the actual existence of excess and wasted organs that end up in hospital dumpsters on a daily basis throughout those parts of the world where the necessary infrastructure to use them is lacking. Indeed, the ill will and competiveness of some hospital workers and medical professionals also contributes to the production of organ "wastage."

2. Presumed consent system:

The presumed consent foundation writes[5]:

"An individual who does not want to be an Organ Donor would have to "opt-out" by entering their name on a National Registry maintained by OPTN - the same organization that now keeps the National Waiting List of transplant candidates. When a person died under circumstances that would permit Organ Donation, a search would be made of the Registry. If their name did not appear in the Registry, it would be presumed they had consented to be a Donor."

We can save more lives this way. Indeed "Tracking the 2% who don't wish to be Donors would be easier than tracking the 98% who do wish to be Donors or don't care." This sysstem already works well in Europe.

3. Prisoners.

There are literally thousands of murderers and rapists serving a life without parole sentence, and dont need an extra kidney. There are also thousands of people who need kidneys. Let's connect the dots people.

--> Refer to my C2. Organ donation would likely decline. The kidney foundation writes[6]:

"While payment for organs has real potential to undermine the transplant system in this country, its ability to increase the supply or organs for transplantation is questionable. In a recent survey of families who refused to donate organs of their loved ones who have died, 92% said that payment would not have persuaded them to donate. 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, in general, and, in particular, because they are concerned that the health care of potential organ donors might be compromised if their donor status were known. A program of financial incentives for organ donation is not likely to change these perceptions and, indeed, may aggravate mistrust. "

III. Gov. ought not be involved in moral issues.

--> Let's consider this. My opponent, again, just asserts this. He links a poll, and when I try to click it it's broken. This is no accusation, but since I can't see the actual poll we can't judge its merits.

--> Turn: The number of people thinking the Government should be involved in morality is increasing according to his own statements.

--> What did his poll define morality as? I assure you that much larger majorities agree that the government should suppress theft and murder, both of which are immoral.

--> Refer to my dropped framework. The government has an obligation to stop an organ market.

Now I'll move on to my case.

A. Commodification

--> I offer an extension of my Scheper-Hughes and Demme cards which have been dropped.

--> My Opponent argues that "Right now, we already do assign values People like President Obama and Bill Gates are considered to have a higher societal value than people who work at Mc Donalds and Burger King." He's mistaking fucntional value with intrinsic value. There's a distinct difference. When we commodify humans we lower the underclass to "suppliers" of the wealthy which dehumanizes them.

--> My Opponent argues that someone could only take a kidney if its offered. Why? If it's a commodity than a bank has the right to take it, just like they have the right to take a house.

B. Poor exploited

Extend the Huebner card which has been dropped.

--> My opponent argues that there are less poor in the U.S. than India. There is some merit to this argument....for my side. If we see enough exploitation in India, where, as my Opponent stated "the true "rich" in India are more like our American middle class", than what on Earth is going to happen in the U.S., where we have actual rich people? See, the fact that our middle and upper classes can afford to buy the organs from the poor "suppliers" just dehumanizes them more.


--> My opponent argued that our economy is driven by selfishness. Cool. Our organ donation system, however, is not. Extend the Caplan, Campbell, and Danovitch & Leichtman cards which argue this logically.


1. Why should the government prevent theft and murder?
2. What is the major unique advantage of your case?
3. Do you believe that there is any human organ/part that should not be sold?
4. Is it ok for the wealthy to suppress the under class?


3. Chapman, Jeremy. "Is It Ever Right to Buy or Sell Human Organs?" October 2010.
4. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. “The Ends of the Body: Commodity Feishism and the Global Traffic in Organs.” 2002.
6. Ibid, kidney foundation.


I'll defend mine, and then move on to my opponent's.

I. We have a right to sell our organs.

My opponent is misinterpreting this; of course it is currently illegal to sell organs, but humans have a natural right to do so. We already are commoditized; you already see in Hollywood, for example, that some actors are payed more than others for a role. I apologize for missing my opponent's framework; however, my opponent's framework is false. The government has no part in moral roles. For some reason, my sources did not link correctly; here is my source to the gallup poll again, but if it doesn't work it can be found by googling "government should not be involved in moral issues gallup".
This isn't just a poll, as also I have shown our founding fathers intended it to be this way. Rights are not something that a society determines. The United States is about protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the minority. For example, during World War 2 the Supreme Court ruled against a law that tried to prevent anti-government press even though the majority of the people agreed with the law. It IS ad populum fallacy. Also, the number of supporters is probably on the rise. Obviously we need to protect our rights, and every human has a right to do what they want with their body, provided it does not hurt others. Your kidney organization quote is also irrelevent because it comes from a highly biased source and there is no evidence of a slippery slope actually happening if an organ trade was legalized. We also must note that a very small percentage of people would be selling their organs.

II. Fixing the ineffective system can be DONE by implementing an organ trade. Your first quote cited 2,700 wasted kidneys- assuming that all of them were not wasted, you've still barely made a dent in the amount of people who need a transplant. For your second counterplan, you must take into account that often times there are errors in a system and someone's organs will be donated who didn't want them to be. Also, you fail to present a figure of how many people would agree to this, and this plan would utilize taxpayer money rather than patient money. As for your third counterplan, money to pay for prisons would go up even higher, and prisoners have a right to keep their organs. You state that there are thousands of prisoners who don't need kindeys; well, technically, most people on earth would be able to donate a kidney, and we could force them to donate, but that doesn't make it right; that is tyranny and a violation of rights.
In essence there isn't anything really "wrong" about an organ plan, other than controversial moral values- if people are truly worried about abusing the poor (even though it doesn't abuse the poor) then the organ trade could limit the selling of organs to the middle and upper classes. It would still be an organ trade.

III. I apologize for the poll being broken; you can see the link above. Also, the evidence states and I stated that the number of people who think the government should not promote in moral values is rising. Obviously, the poll wasn't as broad as the blantantly immoral issues like theft and moral, but was probably rather about the issues of morality that don't harm the pockets and bodies of Americans. Your framework is invalid because, as I have quoted some of our founding fathers, the government is NOT supposed to be involved in ethical issues like this.

Now onto my opponent's case.

My opponent has argued that I have dropped some of his cards- however, in arguing his other cards I have argued these cards. The Scheper-Hughes card, about markets reducing people to commodities, was argued when I discussed how people are already commodified. In contrast, my opponent dropped MY quote in the first contention from Thomas Jefferson.

Taking advantage of the Poor-
I didn't drop anything here either. I didn't need to directly argue every single one of your cards because that would be redundant- in arguing some of them, I have effectively argued them all. My opponent also argues that the situation in the United States would be worse than in India, but this is not true. In "taking advantage" of the poor, we must look not at how rich the richest are, but how poor the poorest are- in America, our poor aren't poor enough to have advantage taken of them, and if we are truly worreid about this, we can avoid any remotely possible problems by making the organ trade closed to the poor (I am not necesarily saying we SHOULD do this, because the poor isn't having advantage taken of them.)

As I have stated, donating an organ is not altrustic. It is done in the same way our economy works, which is selfishness- which is why an organ trade would make sense. Also this argument as a whole is irrelevent and not a reason why the government should stop the organ trade. Again, I did not drop these; arguing every single quote word by word exactly would be redundant, seeing his quotes are saying the same thing, so I refuted all of my opponent's quotes by showing how our economy works the same way organ donation does, and that this isn't a good reason for why the government should outlaw organ donation. My opponent still has not stated the relevence of this.

CX answers-
1. As I stated in my first contention, from Thomas Jefferson, "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?" The government goes into moral issues that could harm people or unjustly take people's money away from them.
2. The major "uniqueness" of my case is the political philosophy- John Locke is correct in stating that human beings have fundamental rights. However this is not a policy debate, so uniqueness should not be any deal at all- we simply are looking at the facts rather than crazy gimmicks. (However I do fail to see your uniqueness..)
3. There should be slight restrictions on which parts should be sold- for example, you shouldn't be allowed to sell organs that are necessary to life and cannot be given until you are dead until you are actually dead. That is, of course, getting into a whole new debate, so I won't go into the topic of assisted suicide much.
4. The wealthy don't "supress" the under class. There are inequal incomes, of course, but the wealthy aren't the rulers of the middle and lower classes. If you are really that worried about inequality, then that is bordering on communism. Your argument about an "evil and supressive" upper class is irrelevent, and starting to get into class warfare. However if you are so worried about this, I offer a plan to make all classes equal; there would be no remote supressive class under communism.

Isn't experience commodified so that people with more experience are more likely to be paid more?
If we switched to a communist system, how would your entire argument about the poor be correct?
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks very much Pro. I'll now go down the flow and explain why I win.

I. Right to sell?

My Opponent draws a comparison to Hollywood to show that people are already commodified. Problem: Such things are based off of experience/skill. Yeah, experience and skill are things that can, to a point, be bought/sold (labor at least can). A distinct difference exists however in the fact that skill and experience are not things that are inrinsic to all humans like organs are. That is to say, you can't truly sell away your talent--only your time. So you can't draw an ethical parallel between the two.

My opponent tries to show that the founding fathers would have intended things like organ markets to exist. I have two attacks. 1. So what? Just because the founders wanted it it's ok? They also wanted slavery to be legal. 2. Other than a silly quote from Jefferson he hasn't proven this. You can refer to my case to see the damage organ markets would do, so I win even if I lose on this.

My opponent tries to pull an ad-populum argument stating that a plurality of Americans doesnt think the gov. should "promote morality". 1. It's a plurality, and the number is growing so the source is turned. 2. It's ad populum. I've already shown that organ markets are very negative things so you have to prefer my arguments over ad populum. 3. I've linked a source showing that the majority was opposed to an organ market. If we want to accept ad populum arguments than I win by default.

No response on my impact calculus. No response to HOW we have this right. No explanation as to WHO decides what rights are if not society. No response to the Kidney foundation card other than it's "biased". He never argues against the logic.

II. Saves lives

He makes no response to the first counterplan other than claiming that it wouldnt save everyone. Ok, but I've given empirical data showing that we would have some moe organs for transplantation. How much empircal evidence has my opponent shown? None what so ever! He asserts that more people would sell or donate but I have given multiple cards, all dropped showing this to be false! So extend counterplan number one.

Counterplan two doesn't get much of a response either. Sure, there might be a small amount of mistakes in the presumed consent system, but it doesn't make any effect but a positive one. If we screw up with presumed consent we have a dead guy who is buried with one kidney instead of two. If we screw up with an organ market we have poor people being exploited and we've turned ourselves into commodities to be bought and sold. He also argues that I didnt show it to be successful, but I've already linked the presumedconsent society card and said that its done well in Europe. His final objection is that it costs tax payers money instead of a patient. I can think of literally no greater way to spend tax dollars than to save lives with them. The gov. is obligated to spend that money in its citizens best interests--what greater interest is there than more life that comes at a moral cost to literally no one?

Counterplan three has been essentially dropped. He argues that prisoners have a "right" to keep their organs. In the eyes of 2/3rds of Americans[1] certain prisoners don't even have the right to life. My opponent will surely object that thats an ad populum argument, but he's shown NO weighing mechanism to determine rights and morality other than societal opinion.

III. Not the governemnts place

No impact argued, who cares? No evidence save for one poll that's already been turned. No weighing mechanism for morality, and no explanation as to where the obligation of the government stops. Why should the gov. prevent something " blantantly immoral" like theft or murder if it has NO place in morality like his contention claims? This contention falls.

My Case:


My Opponent has dropped everything, only claiming that he wasn't obligated to attack all my cards. So extend literally everything I've said on this. He's dropped the logical warrants so you need to vote con based off that.

Poor exploited

He's only argued that we can't compare india to the U.S. However he dropped the Huebner card that DOES refer to the developed world. Also, nowhere in my contention was it argued that the exploitation of the poor would be U.S. specific.
So you need to vote Con on this point because it's been dropped.

2. Alturism crowded out

My Opponent merely argues that "this argument as a whole is irrelevent and not a reason why the government should stop the organ trade. " remember my framework? If the organ markets are ethically or practically counter productive than the government is obligated to suppress it. My Opponent dropped all of the logic behind this point, so again extend it all.

We can conclude based off drops in this round that organ markets cause commodifications, exploit the poor, and make less organ availible. So essentially, a Con ballot.

CX responses

I'll show how one of his answers is highly significant.

2. "There should be slight restrictions on which parts should be sold- for example, you shouldn't be allowed to sell organs that are necessary to life and cannot be given until you are dead until you are actually dead. " You can vote Con. He's conceded that the government should stop organ selling in some cases. Even if it's just a conditional, it's enough to negate the resolution.

His questions:

1. The problem with the experience analogy is that exerience is not something thaat can be taken away---organs are. Organs cannot be returned or regrown. Conversly, experience never goes away.

2. True communism? No, there would be no rich or poor. Communism as it is in reality? Even more so, there were HUGE abuses against the under class in the USSR. However this is ir-relevant because the U.S. switching to capitalism is about as likely as izbo10 converting to christianity.

I urge a con vote.



Bugaham forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
its ok, we all lose track of time :)
Posted by Bugaham 6 years ago
Hey, sorry about the forfeit, I just ran out of time. Good debate :)
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
"There are literally thousands of murderers and rapists serving a life without parole sentence, and dont need an extra kidney. There are also thousands of people who need kidneys. Let's connect the dots people. "

Legit argument is legit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides three counterplans, which pro doesn't adequately respond to (there's no great answer to presumed consent offered), so there's really no need to vote pro. Also, if altruism is crowded out, for all I know, allowing sale could result in a net decrease in available organs. Those were the easy outs. The rest of the arguments were more contested, but no need to weigh in on those, unless the debaters want. Con had better sources and no forfeits (conduct).