AAN-Tourney: This house would legalize the sale of organs.

Thanks Con! Prelude My opponent has not contested, and therefore has conceded, that the burden of proof is in fact shared. I’m also hoping that my opponent was not attacking my case by insinuating that I merely engaged in verbal diarrhoea. Moreover, our judges are more than qualified to discern quality from quantity. Rebuttals R1) Exploits the poor As I said before, millions of people are suffering, not because the organs do not exist, but because ‘‘morality’’ or “exploitation of the poor” does not allow them to have access to the organs. According to the USDHS, about 123, 183 people are currently waiting for an organ, and about 18 die each day on average [1]. One organ save up to 8 lives [1]. Also, with an increase in supply, or a rightward/upward shift in the supply curve, prices, ceteris paribus, go down. Therefore more people would be able afford them. An organ is cheaper than imminent death from a wait list that is too long. R2) "Islam sold one of his kidneys to escape his debt…because of the extra care he requires from the procedure." This can happen as a result of organ doning as well. Moreover, with an established system in place, after the sale of organs is legalized, we can put in procedures to test beforehand and screen people who are willing to sell their organs to ensure it is safe. Moreover, my opponent misrepresents my position. His use of the word “exploit” is mendacious. Exploit means “to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage”[2] I’d like to inquire from my opponent: who’d being exploited? Who is exploiting whom? The sale of organs will be a voluntary transaction. Within an economy, suppliers are willing to supply goods at a certain price, and people will buy goods at that price. There may be negotiation and bidding, but at the end of the day, by making these organs available, everyone is better off. The people selling the organs benefit financially, and organs are made available. Why are we then preventing it? Should we then ban the sale of food because some people can’t afford it and it won’t be “fair?” “The concept of human dignity does not demand that people should be forced to die a premature death where an illness can be cured nor that people who donate organs should die of hunger and their families be left to starve.”[3] Moreover, the organs that will be sold belong to the sellers. It is their property and as such, they should do with it as they please. R3) Corporate Marketing This is an unwieldy, unsourced, unsubstantiated assumption and an appeal to consequentialism, which Con cannot prove. Then he falsely assumes that people in "impoverished areas" have the correct or healthy organs and would be marketed to for supply. Impoverished people tend to be unhealthy. Who wants an impoverished kidney when you can have a healthy one? If a business gets a reputation for that, which would be inevitable due to the information age, it’s ruined. Next, Con's attacking marketing, not organ sales. He hasn't made a case against organ sales. Also, wouldn’t this form of targeting occur even with a black market? Maybe the marketing wouldn't be as well-known, but it quite likely still occurs, and it's even worse because: (1) there's no regulation of it. (2) there's no accountability because there's no free market. In a free market economy, if a business does these types of spurious things he's talking about, people will find out and it’'ll go out of business. That's compounded with lawsuits and government fines and the threat of jail-time. However, in a situation where the only way desperate patients can attain an organ is the black market, people will be less concerned about the quality, or cost or treatment of them. R4) Concerning the Bangladesh example, It’s difficult for Con to establish causation so he should give a first-hand account. I tried to view Con’s source to determine its validity. Unfortunately, I can’t find the quote and as many of Con’s sources are not opening correctly, I await his clarification. Con’s argument in a syllogism: P1) If (x) law will be abused in (y) country, (x) law shouldn't exist. P2) (x) law will be abused in (y) country. C1) Therefore, (x) law shouldn't exist. This is a flawed syllogism because literally any law or stipulation can be abused or misused. Foreign aid is often abused, but that doesn't mean that we should abolish all foreign aid. People depend on it. The problem with Con’s argument is that he assumes that "if (x) could conceivably, in one example, give rise to (y) problem, it should be abolished." This isn't adequate reasoning for keeping something illegal. It only presents a conceivable problem that we could address with adequate policy. The black market just makes this situation worse, whereas a free market would be better and safer, as said before. Under a proper system, free market businesses would be forced to be safe and sell properly-functioning organs. R5) Image of the Poor Con cannot prove causation and is acting off a mere assumption. If one thinks that something makes you look "selfish and inconsiderate," should it be outlawed? Should we outlaw two-piece swimsuits, even shopping, if I say they look "selfish and inconsiderate?" This isn't an adequate criterion, and thus the contention falls. Also, as pointed out before, the black market being less effective outweighs this point. R6) The rich will get priorities over the needy I already stated why this is not immoral. I stated in round one, why the prevention of the legalization of organ sales is actually immoral. As said before, by legalizing the sale of organs, the number of organs on the market increases. According to the supply curve, the price will drop if the supply increases, thereby making organs more affordable. Just because (x) policy may benefit (y) group, even more than (z) group, that doesn't mean that (z) group doesn't benefit. For example, free trade. (y) country may not benefit as much as (z) country from trade, but it still benefits. In the case of a small country, it actually captures virtually all of the benefits from trade because it's in a position in which to gain more, and thus it acquires additional utility from its gains than a larger country would. Also, Con hasn't proven that, on balance, the rich will benefit more. He's only making assertions. As for trafficking, he hasn’t demonstrated causation; that would, however, occur under a black market. R7) Organs being auctioned off to the highest bidder prioritizes the rich over the needy. Iran currently is the only place that allows the sales of organs. With the legalization in other countries, systems can be put in place to establish a proper market. As said before, by economic laws: where there is an increase in supply will reduce scarcity and, ceteris paribus, decrease the price. Con only asserts that this will take place in an auction system and that there is, in some way, a higher demand for organs among rich people. Aren't rich people healthier than poor people? Also, an increase in supply reduces the costs by reducing scarcity, meaning that this would be affordable to poor people. Not to mention, markets are eclectic creatures. If poor people demanded organs, markets would adjust and lower prices to accommodate those people. People selling organs want to profit, so of course there would be a market for people of lesser means. But the argument that "poverty exists" does not even remotely address the point. The organs, as I said before, would be much more expensive under a black market, and there would be NO way for people to seek legal recourse. R8) Profit over People My opponent relies on bare assertions to fulfil his arguments. As said before, with an increase in supply, the prices will drop, making it easier to afford. He doesn’t contest this. R9) Eclipsing Organ Donations 1. There is no way to prove this, as there will still be kind-hearted people who would be willing to donate. 2. Right now, there is a lack of available organs, resulting in unnecessary deaths. With organ sales, we'll be able to save more lives! The pros of saving these lives outweigh the con of having a system in place where there is a lack of organs and few people live! People who currently give their organs, without financial benefits, are doing so out of altruism -- out of love for a family, or friend, or another human being. They're not being paid for it, but are inconveniencing themselves and paying a personal cost to benefit someone else. Do you, Con, think, people would literally abandon any altruistic tendencies they may have had? Organs have to match e.g. bloodtype. By increasing the supply you're also increasing variety. Even in that case, the price would decline because there would be multiple organs compatible with, say, blood type A. People would literally die if they can't access the right kind of compatible organ, and all you're doing this making it known, thus expanding access, knowledge, and affordability. Con provides no evidence that society en masse would drop organ doning. His likening of a live-saving organ to yardwork trivilizes the vital role of organ transplants. R10) Maximization of profit Con insinuates that firms maximize revenue when prices are as high as possible. This is incorrect. Firms maximize revenue when the marginal cost equals marginal revenue. When you increase the supply of something, you decrease its costs because your reduced its scarcity. You reduced the costs in the factor markets -- there are more organs, meaning that costs of inventory are down -- and therefore allow businesses to lower their prices in order to sell more. When prices fall, more people are willing and able to buy things. Conclusion I have refuted Con’s arguments, and proven that he is arguing based off assertions, not facts. The economics and morality arguments I have presented have gone uncontested. For that reason, Vote Pro. Sources: [1]- http://tinyurl.com... [2]- http://tinyurl.com... [3]- http://tinyurl.com...