Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

My opponent stated that I am arguing that the OOS will decrease donation rates, however this is not the case. Nowhere in my case did I say anything about donation rates DECREASING with presumed consent legislation. They also state that by allowing people to have their own choice, my proposed society is a manipulated society. I do not see how this is so, since people have more freedom to decide their own fate. A manipulated society would be one like the Pro is proposing at s/he seems to think that forcing people to donate their organs is the way to go. Allowing a choice? or Forcing someone to give you their organs? It is easy to discern which is the more manipulative of the two (if you didn't guess at first, it's the society which forces you to donate).My opponent also hinted to the statement that a just society wouldn't give people the right to choose to donate("one in which people will donate their organs only if they have been given full say over whether they will or not"[paragraph two of Pro's Round 2 case]). This is the whole reason that organ donation is called organ DONATION, because people CHOOSE to have their organs donated, in the opt-in system and the mandatory choice system. The opt out system, although, takes away some part of the goodness of the donation since many people who don't know the laws will be exploited. A just society would undoubtedly let its people make this choice, and almost all other choices that could potentially affect their lives or property, because the Freedom of Choice is perhaps THE most important freedom that a government must protect. The society that my opponent has promoted in these past few arguments is a tyranny! Regardless of the fact that people of society may choose not to donate based upon their own beliefs or because of their selfishness, they MUST have the right to choose for themselves. My opponent again stated that mandatory choice was manipulating justice, however this is untrue because of the reasons I stated above. In this same paragraph, s/he stated that his hypothetical between the election and mandatory choice both showed that justice was being manipulated, this isn't true. This argument doesn't really make any sense as the government wouldn't be manipulating them in any way. They aren't forcing them to make one decision, they are simply giving them the right to express their opinion. S/he states again that the point of bringing up my evidence was so that I could prove that presumed organ procurement lowers donation rates however this is not the case. Maybe reading the article fully through or possibly even reading the title of the article will clear this up for my opponent. Also s/he states that, "presumed consent rises above it as a thing of true societal justness: a natural goodness and readiness to help one's fellow man." This is an opinion and has no evidence, or arguments really, to support this claim. This debate must be regarding which society is more just (OOS or MCS) is based partially, possibly mainly, upon donation rates or my opponent's arguments which state that PC is good because donation rates rise have all fallen. But this can't be the case since a just society would value raised donation rates and only in my system are rates raised while individual rights are also being secured.Finally s/he states again that I said somewhere that organ donation rates will decrease however this is not the case. The argument I provided obviously doesn't include anything of the likes. The whole reason that I haven't, "provided any substantial evidence that presumed consent actually does lower the rates of organ donation," is because I haven't actually made this argument. Ignorant to their own argument that said that a just society would not necessarily be determined by increased organ donation rates, my opponent stated that Spain has the highest donors per million population because of presumed consent. However, this is not the case. As you can see in the data, the top five and the bottom six have presumed consent legislation. What does this mean? It means that there is not correlation in this argument, because if it were true that PC increased organ donation rates, these bottom six spots wouldn't be host to PC run countries.My opponent has not really refuted any of my points with valid refutations so this should be taken into account when evaluating the winner of this round. He did kind of state that the opt out system is better than my mandatory system, but none of his arguments proved this to be incorrect. The opt out system is not the magic bullet to solving the organ crisis! My second contention is still valid because the only thing that my opponent said in regards to this argument was that it "manipulated justice". A just society (or really any society) would make their choices based upon what they think is best for their area, whether it be liberty, or happiness, they are still making the laws with this mindset, in essence "manipulating" society. This is showing that my opponent is proposing a society where law makers don't make any new laws, right?For my third contention s/he gave us the convoluted hypothetical situation with the election that did not at all pertain to how mandatory choice takes away individual rights or to this debate, really. So, this can't be accepted as a valid argument.Overall, the Pro has argued a whole different argument in this round and hasn't backed up any of their contentions, which I all refuted, so I am assuming that they haven fallen as well since they chose to bring up a different argument entirely in this round.Again, I strongly negate the resolution.