This house will legalize the sale of organs.
Debate Rounds (4)
Hello. Today we have four rounds. Our first round is only acceptance. The second is arguments. The third is rebuttals, minor arguments. The last round is for conclusion.
1. No forfeiting
2. If you are not over the elo of 3000, you can't accept. If you accept, you have to forfeit all rounds to me.
I accept my opponent's topic, as well as his first rule. However, I reject his second rule.
Aside from that, I hope this is a good debate. I'm sure my opponent will, in good faith, present his argument in its fullest extent, to allow a lengthy and educational debate.
I will be arguing that "the house should not legalize the sale of organs". Since my opponent didn't offer definitions or clarifications, I will offer these now. They are, of course, open to dispute.
By "sale of organs", we refer to the free market selling of any organ(s) from a donor that has stated they are an organ donor.
By "legalize the sale of", we refer to the ability for any agent in legal possesion of said organ(s) to sale said organ(s) to any other entity, within reasonability.
By "the house", we refer to a governmental organization similar to a democratic government and based upon real world examples of said democratic governments.
I will also be assuming that my opponent intends for this solicitation to apply to all organs of any legal donor to any reasonable candidate of consumption.
I look forward to the debate.
This debate is just over 3000 elo. This is because I want to debate with people of an higher ELO than me. This debate has to be a tie. If you do not accept the tie, you will automatically lose. If I accept if it is not a tie next round if you convince me, we can debate. But for right now this debate is a tie.
First, I will briefly discuss the nature of ELO ratings. An ELO rating is generally an integer that can be used to compare one person's skill in some field to another person's skill. ELO's do not scale linearly, rather the distribution of ELO values is reminscent of a bell curve. On this particular site, all new debaters have an ELO of 2000. The first few debates can dramatically change this -- by hundreds of points in some cases. However, for each debate won, you can expect a smaller and smaller increase in your ELO. This is simply the nature of the ELO rating system.
This is relevant, as it pertains to my opponent's request in Round 1 that he face an opponent with a 3000 ELO -- a particularly high rating that only a few people on debate.org would possess. The opponent's ELO is just under 2300, a rating considerably lower than 3000. Now the opponent stated he wanted to debate someone with a higher ELO than himself, a much more reasonable request. However, this desire was not made clear until this round, after the debate was already accepted.
My accepting this debate was not a choice brought on by indifference to my opponent's wishes, but instead was the result of reasonable thinking. My opponent's debate had been in the challenge period for a while and I know that 3000+ ELO'ers are rare. Given those facts, it was acceptable for me to accept this debate.
Where We Stand
Now, my opponent has stated this round that this debate should be considered a tie. I also reject this. In my Round 1 clarification, I gave the opponent plenty of material to work with. What's more, the opponent is the affirmative claimant, so he should already have a case prepared. The fact that he chose not to post that, but instead post a short paragraph explaining why he thinks this whole thing should be a tie, demonstrates a laziness and short-sightedness that is not deserving of a tie.
As it currently stands, my opponent is losing this debate. He made a claim in the debate title, but provided no arguments supporting that claim. What's worse, he didn't even make the attempt to. Now, my opponent has a few rounds left to post an argument. Let us hope it is a good one, so that this debate can proceed as it was meant to.
A Brief Counter-Argument
In good faith, I will present a few reasons why the house should not legalize the sale of organs. This will be brief and generalized, as I do not have a case to specifically cater them to.
1. Devaluation of Human Life
In today's world, except for rare cases, a dead human is generally worthless to the living, in any urgent sense. It's possible that the body will be used for scientific research, but the gains from any one body are so small that there is little motive to let a human die for that purpose.
In the world my opponent proposes, the sale of organs would be legal. A reasonable assumption is that hospitals would have the right to harvest and sell these organs once a patient has died. This would give the hospital a massive incentive to allow some patients to die, by providing them with shoddy healthcare, as the rewards from letting them die far outstrip the punishments. When you turn a human body into something more valuable dead than alive, there becomes an incentive to simply let them die.
2. Liability Issues.
If we were to allow the legal sale of organs, this would drastically increase the amount of human organs in the marketplace, naturally. This would mean that any given organ might move between multiple third party sellers. If something ended up being wrong with the organ, due to mishandling or lack of proper care, and this organ was placed into a patient who later died as a result, it isn't clear who would be at fault. It's possible that the hospital would be to blame, but they'd point the finger at these third party companies who would all claim it was someone else's fault.
Due to the lack of oversight inherent in the capitalist selling of free-market goods, it wouldn't be clear who should pay when an organ is mistreated. If no one is getting punished for mishandling, then mishandling will become more common, leading to waste and the endangerment of patient's lives. Only in today's world, with the controlled, non-profit and immediate transfer of organs can proper oversight be insured.
And that'll do for now. I look forward to the next round and dearly hope that my opponent makes some good arguments.
I do not accept going on. Even though you win this debate, you are not the ELO of 3000. Anyways you have to forfeit all points to me.
There are 291 people who are over 3000 ELO. Therefore it is not rare so you have to give all points to me unless you accept the tie.
My opponent failed to provide an argument, even though he was given multiple opportunities to do this. He even has admitted that I "won the debate", though he believes I should take a tie since I didn't accept one of his rules when beginning the debate. I'll speak briefly on why this rule is unreasonable and why I was still in the right to accept the debate.
First, let's discuss why the rule was unresonable. To be clear, we're discussing his requirement to have a 3,000+ ELO in order to accept the debate. As I have recently explained, the ELO is a bell curve, meaning particularly high ELO's are rare. My opponent points out that 291 people have an ELO of over 3,000, but fails to realize that this site has 29,380 members. This means less that 1% of all people who have made an account on this site have the required ELO.
Now many of these users are inactive, while the people at the top are likely to be more active. Despite this, its still reasonable to assume the percentage of 3,000+ ELO debaters who would be online during the time the debate was in the challenge period is quite low. This is important for two reasons.
1. The sheer few potential debaters means the debate likely would not be accepted under the opponent's draconian rule.
2. Given the opponent's relatively low ELO (2,300 as compared to 3,000), it is not likely that a high ELO'er would even consider taking the debate in the first place.
Now that we can see how unlikely it is that this debate would have been accepted by someone conforming to rule #2, we must look at why it was still better for me to take this debate.
Debates, in the very nature, are designed for intellectual discourse -- a way of discussing and analyzing ideas. Debates in which debating actually occurs are often educational to anyone who reads/watches them and are of particular intellectual benefit to the debaters themselves. By accepting this debate, I made the conscious decision to insure that the debate happened. It would be far less beneficial to the public had this debate simply timed out and never happened.
This should have been clear to the opponent, however it seems to have gone unnoticed by him. Despite several offerings that he could still present his argument and depite the fact that my lengthy responses are some indication that am I willing to delve into and explore this topic, my opponent has done nothing but complain.
Carry over my arguments from the previous round. Vote Con.
You have to forfeit all points to me.. We could have a rematch though. It states clearly that if you accept and not over the ELO of 3000, you have to forfeit all points to me.
I have already made my position abundantly clear in the previous round. There I also outlined my reasons for why I have won this debate. I won't bore the reader by repeating them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.