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

only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

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: 9/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 61707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




it's the only fair way to do things


As an organ donor myself, I must say that for me, as long as my organs benefited someone I do not care what their race, class, gender, politics or organ donor status may be.

The main idea of it is to help your fellow man whom is in need, after you pass away. If a man is lying in a hospital bed, turning yellow through kidney failure, why should he be left to die for the non-crime of not being an organ donor? That is inhumane.

What is your opinion on the mentally impaired who are not considered to be fit to give consent to be an organ donor, should they miss out on a chance for their lives to be saved?

According to "only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants" they should not receive a transplant.
That doesn"t seem right to me.
Debate Round No. 1


there are a lot of practical stuff that would need addressed, like the mentally handicap point.

but it's still the only fair thing to do. unlike con says, the person wouldn't be left to die, per se. well, they would, but it's at the expense of others who would die if he doesn't. that is, 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.


So you concede that despite them not being organ donors, the mentally handicapped should not be made to go without transplant?

And thus the statement 'only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants' is defeated.
Debate Round No. 2


con wishes to fall back on a technicality and doesnt wish to engage in the heart of the matter.


I have already engaged in the heart of the matter when I touched upon fairness and morals in my opening statement.

Con is too proud to concede that his original statement does not stand.

It is a shame that Con has shown that he believes the mentally handicapped to be a technicality.

Thank you for this debate, I would be happy to debate it with you again, if and when you develop more substance behind your point.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by McAdeath 3 years ago
This debate is the dumbest argument ever.If only organ donors could recieve organs,then whats the point of donating.If it's life saving then you should be allowed to get it.This argument is so stupid.I have freinds with heart transplants and you can't just give up an organ if you are a new born baby.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
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: con rebutted pro's sole argument