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

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:CommodificationMy 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 exploitedHe'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 responsesI'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.1. http://www.gallup.com...