The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FantumHeist
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants, for the most part

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 2 votes the winner is...
FantumHeist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 61755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

linate

Pro

only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants, for the most part

there are a lot of practical stuff that would need addressed, like the mentally handicap point where they can"t consent to being an organ donor.

i dont mean to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye... but when it comes down to who should get dibs, why should someone who wasn't a donor get dibs? there's a line of people who want the organs. why should the guy who wasn't an organ donor himself get dibs? he shouldn't... that's not the fair thing to do.

if we required people be donors, more people would sign up, and there'd be more organs for people. this would be overall better for that reason.

if a person doesnt want to be a donor, why should they get organs when they need em, when others need em? the fitting analogy is a free loader analogy. wanting something free without putting up anything in return. in a system where we donate organs, they aren't contributing at all. that is free rider.
FantumHeist

Con

Like I said in the comments
Being a organ donor means you are giving it to someone in need organ donors need transplants means 2 things bad organs or they have donated an organ therefor they are saying no I want my organ back...
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

con's points are to decipher and largely incoherent.

i'll wait for further clarification so i know how to and what to respond.
FantumHeist

Con

You said only donors should have the ability to get transplants but they are donors they give organs for people who need new organs if they ever need a transplant they can have on but that means 1 of 2 things they have a bad organ or they need an organ because they just gave up an organ why should they only get organ transplants
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

it's still hard to decipher a coherent message. but it seems straightforward enough to respond now.

con says it means they gave up an organ so they want an organ back. no, only people who have died give organs for the most part, at least for teh purposes of this debate. that means they won't need an organ. if it were we were talking about soemone volunteering an organ and needed another... why not give it to em if they are first in line? they deserve it before a nonorgan donor.
the other point con made was the organ they donated was bad. if it was bad, then they don't deserve another one, sure.

i think con is talking about nondead donors, but still, his points are too hard to decipher either way.
FantumHeist

Con

it goes both ways it unfair for only people who are organ donors to get the organ when the person die's than so body on the streets no home and no money to not get the organ that is inequality
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FantumHeist 2 years ago
FantumHeist
Being a organ donor means you are giving it to someone in need organ donors need transplants means 2 things bad organs or they have donated an organ therefor they are saying no I want my organ back...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
linateFantumHeistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro mostly complained about how con's arguments were incoherent, making no arguments of her own, and con's arguments were undefeated.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
linateFantumHeistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Despite the rough language, I was able to see what Con was going for, and thus satisfied the premise to his side. An organ donor is an organ donor by ability, and depending on the organ, might not be able to be a 'donor' post recipient of an organ. There is no reason to hold life expectancy over some one whom has the desire but not the ability to donate.