THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading

Thanks for Wytled to accept my challenge. I am Pro in this debate, however it says I am Con. That is just one mistake. Secondly, Wylted asked me to debate 16k on this one. I might, however I think it will be much better if you two do a debate with each other.FrameworkThe debate is about we should deny health care to the people who had engaged in illegal organ trading. I will talk about the effects and the consequences of this. My opponent will talk about the consequences and effects. If I fill the BOP, I win the debate. If my opponent fills BOP, he wins.Okay, I will get into my arguments first.ArgumentsBefore I will go to my arguments, I think we need to crack down on the black market and also punish the people involved in illegal organ trading because, it is wrong in principle.1. Underestimates the health care systemMy first argument is that this underestimates the health care system. If you just read the argument title, it is a bad idea. Our team thinks that we need consequences because of this. People should be getting organs under the government health care system, not through the black market. Only through the government system can we ensure that the donated organ was not given out of abuse, Now, if some people obtain organs faster through the black market, then everyone who needs an organ will turn to the black market instead of waiting for the government, which makes bad consequences. Not only illicit organ trade crime, we believe that there should be additional consequences harming the health care system, otherwise there will be some bad effects to the government's health care system, and also to the citizens. I think that this should not happen. If we do this we will underestimate the health care system like it is nothing however, we think that we need special consequences.2. Indirectly subsidizing the black market.Okay, this argument is about if we do not do what the resolution says, it is indirectly subsidizing the black market.If the national health care system continues to subsidize these people who illegally participated in the black market of organ trade, then the state would be indirectly subsidizing the black market. This is principle wrong, which means that we should not do this. That means that the resolution is right and also we have to deny healthcare to these people who engaged in this illegal and harmful organ trading.3. Send a strong messageOkay, my last argument is that it sends a strong message.I think that our policy will have a deterrent effect. Since organ transplanted patient needs long-term health care for their condition, cutting national health care would significantly increase the costs of their medical bills which is good for the patient. We think this will disincentivize many people from engaging in illicit organ trading because, if you do not thing, you have good effects, when if you do engage in the illegal organ trading you won't. Even if the policy fails to deter to everyone, it will at least reduce the black market compared to at first which is a very good thing.ConclusionBecause of these three arguments, I think that we should not support health care to the people who engaged on illegal organ trading. We need to crack down on to the black market and punish the people who engaged in illegal organ trading. Thank you.This is the end of my arguments. Even if my position says Con, I am actually Pro as Wytled has requested. Thank you. I hope Con write his arguments. Vote for Pro.(Actually Con in site header.)Thank you. Over to Pro.Sources1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2. http://www.foxnews.com...3. http://idebate.org...4. http://dsq-sds.org...5. http://newint.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...