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

Well, I got off to a bad start here, but my position isn't unsalvageable. In fact, I argued it somewhat without complete awareness of what the resolution actually entailed, so... Hey, emotional charge... Anyhow, we're going to have to go back to what a "just" society is, then.Now, my opponent's referencing sociological investigations is interesting (something I hadn't expected in my predictions :,), but it's not absolutely solid either, even if I were to think to concede that their findings are correct (and I am doing no such thing, but rather layering my arguments); that perhaps allowing people a straight choice rather than a premade choice + an opt-out might accrue a greater number of donations. The thing is, this is more so a manipulated society than a "just" society. Indeed, psychological reactance, which is the phenomenon by which my opponent's sources suppose organ donations would possibly be decreased, and the same phenomenon by which children turn to alchohol and drug abuse in their immature and reactionary years, has very little to do with justness, but rather childishness. Is this, then, what we are to call a "just" society; one in which people will donate their organs only if they have been given full say over whether they will or not, even to the point that they might not? But my opponent brings up mandatory choice here, and that's well and good, but does not skirt the underlying unjustness of our hypothetical society's people, and what else is a society but its people? Should we say that a society amounts to its laws alone? Well, in that case, what of my opponent's individual rights; what of one's right to be unjust? No, to pawn off "justness" upon the law does not a just society make, but rather an individualist and selfish society--individualist and selfish people.On individual rights, then, with which my opponent has contested mandatory or perhaps even presumed consent organ procurement (although individual rights even taken to the ridiculous lengths that we are discussing are not violated by this latter arrangement)... well, indeed, a just society should only presume consent of donation rather than force donation, because uh... maybe my opponent is a Tarzan-like fellow, or perhaps there is a religious conviction there too strong to be reneged upon and it would be unjust to psychologically torture a person in order to possibly afford the chance that another's life might be saved. And yes, this does seem somewhat a different stance to that which I was taking in my opening round, but uh... In my defense, I read "presume" to mean something along the lines of "predicate" and so that entire opening round might be considered argument against my opponent's argument from individual rights (sans that stuff about the religious people--but again, I was making moralistic argument rather than argument with regard to something which might be immediately applied.).And of course we are also dealing in the real world, which I am painfully aware that I pointed out to my opponent in my opening round. As such,--and getting back to my opponent's sociologists, and to further explore this notion of manipulated justness--is not the society which accrues the most organ donations, however they may come, the most just society? I contest that it is not, but, again, that outside of moral rightness of intent, that it is but a manipulated society. Indeed, if manipulation to a positive effect were to make rightness, then there is much in the way of tyranny that might bandwagon its way into being. Would it be just, for example, if Obama and McCain were both but puppets and that last election a lie; even if the puppeteer was best for society? Individual rights, anyone? No, it would simply be a farce. And yes, the election hypothetical is not exactly equal to the mandatory choice hypothetical, but the manipulation to "justness" remains constant across both--it's the same thing. Again: individual rights, anyone? Should you deny yourself your right to be stupid and reactionary in the name of greater organ donation, you also commend the good puppeteer on his manipulations. And so this whole thing of justness in greater organ donation, no matter how the greater donation is achieved, falls to silliness, and presumed consent rises above it as a thing of true societal justness: a natural goodness and readiness to help one's fellow man.If the above motion should fail, however, my opponent has not provided any substantial evidence that presumed consent actually does lower the rates of organ donation. In Spain, presumed consent has been a part of their societal structure for 10 years and Spain is host to the highest donation rate (of course it has not been acted on, and people consent to donation as in the US, but nor has it been catalyst to this psychological reactance my opponent's sociologists speak of). Further, the main bulk of the argument otherwise, from what I can gather (see "conclusion" here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...), seems to be in that there will be some opposition to the introduction of presumed consent, some knee-jerk silliness, but the conclusion here clearly that, "A hard system of presumed consent would almost certainly lead to an increase in rates of donation," and though the article I linked to is actually against presumed consent, please note also that all of the arguments contrary are incredibly wishy-washy feely arguments and based on very little at all. In fact, they tie in with my opponent's foundational argument of "individual rights," my opponent having read himself, I assume, that a hard system of presumed consent would more than likely lead to an increase in organ donation. Moreover, there is no talk of "justness" in that article, the invoking of which allows us to question here the sentiments mentioned within, the rightness of them, and again we come back to manipulated justness and how ridiculous a thing that actually is.