Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

Thanks debatability. Jack here."Though this debate isn't being done in a strictly LD format...Even if the counterplans contradict each other, they should be considered viable options for different societies because the actual specifics of a just society are dependent upon how justice is interpreted and understood...The burden on the negative is to prove that the affirmative cannot reach increased harmony." Oh ho ho, you really do seem to have tricks up your sleeve! Let's see what you say.C1: P.C. can backfire I see, I see. However, my opponent needs to prove that another policy can't backfire. For example, in the manual consent policy, in which people are assumed to NOT want to donate their organs unless they say otherwise, this policy can backfire as well. People can be annoyed at having to go to some organ donation hospital place and say for themselves "Yes, sir, I want to donate organs." And in addition, most people do want to donate organs. The same family problems would occur even in the manual consent policy. Studies show [http://abcnews.go.com...] that "Nearly 72 percent of Americans said they wanted to donate their organs after death, even if their family disagrees", "but only 38 percent of licensed drivers are registered to [donate organs]". Those 72% would all have to go to hospitals and annoyingly fill in information and say "Yes, yes, I want to donate my organs after I die." MAJORITY RULES. It would be more just to force that 28% to go to hospitals and fill in information and say "No, I don't want to donate my organs after I die" rather than those 72%.C2: Other choicesOkay, here we go now....I'll rebut all of these one by one.A: Forced donationUnfortunately this makes people lose their freedom of choice, contradicting against the part concerning "just society". A just society would give two choices to people.B: Mandated choiceAh, this is what I was talking about. “relatives have neither power nor opportunity to veto an individual’s decision.” This is absurd. If relatives have power in presumed consent, then they will have power in mandated choice. These two policies work in the same way, only that one assumes you don't want to donate while the other assumes you want to donate.C: Organ sales legalization So....? Presumed consent would be like one gazillion times more effective, no? Those greedy hoarders would be completely unable to access organs, with most people wanting to donate their organs, they don't have to go through the trouble to register and tell the hopsital their decision, and those that don't want to donate their organs would not gladly give their organs to the greedy hoarders in exchange for money.Societies may have the freedom to morph into these policies temporarily, but overall, presumed consent is the best policy for a just society. When in doubt, a society should stick to P.C.I was actually expecting my opponent to just start rebutting with the fact that people can be diagnosed brain disease and the brain test isn't 100% accurate. But I guess she realized this problem applies to all other policies too. For this round, I believe Debatabilities' arguments are destroyed. 9spaceking has made a good decision. I, Jack McGonnell, still hold the upper hand in this debate. Onto you, Debatability.