April PFD Topic

aS a brief road-map, I'm going Pro, then Con, and finishing up by going back to the Pro; Pro- 1. My opponent still doesn't solve for the issue we are debating; thus he is off topic, and cannot hope to win this debate. He never proves that financial incentives would save all of these people from dying either, again adding to the mix that death is unavoidable; and my opponent has no impact in this round. By default you must vote Con. Con- Argument 1: My opponent is correct in their statement that the resolution doesn't imply the federal government would necessarily pay for the organ transplants, however the resolution also does not indicate that the government would not be paying for these incentives. Ultimately we must assume the most plausible situation when debating a resolution such as this; and the most plausible thing, is that it would indeed be the government giving out these financial incentives. We have to remember that this is donation, not marketing; The incentives are more along the lines of a gift, than a payment for services rendered. The organs are going towards the national transplant list; so again, it is government oriented. Also since this is donation, my opponent has no impact on the free market economy; or the Tax incentive. Argument 2: First my opponent agrees to this point, so I already win this area. Second my opponent only critiques the idea I offer without providing any alternative. This is PFD debate, and not Policy debate; so my refutation here is not that my opponent offer no counterplan, but simply that we don't know that the alternative would be better. He claims that an incentive based system would make people more willing to donate, but there is no warrant here; we cannot know that this is true, because Pro doesn't prove it to be true. Argument 3: Compensation does not equate payment. Again extend my argument that "Financial Incentives" is going to be more akin to a gift than a payment for services rendered; so then at the point my opponent admits that these people are not organ donors, but organ vendors I will win since my opponent does not meet the burden the resolution gives him. Pro- On the argument that death is inevitable; my opponent is mis-construing my attack. If you'll go back to my prior speech in which I make this attack, you will see that I'm point out that death is something that will always be present, I in no way advocate that since people are dying we ought to simply kill them off. While the death of any-one is always sad, it is ultimatelty inevitable; we must not blatantly and blindly argue the pathos stance of life. It must have an impact in this round before we can consider it. As for my opponent's final argument regarding the black market, and iran; I ask that these not be weighed in this round, simply because they're abusive. My opponent offers these point as a very obscure underview, and as a new argument in the second to last speech. Not that he would win them anyway. With the argument of the black market, this is an extreme; and people who would resort to such extremes are people whom either have no moral conciousness, or are simply that desperate. This doesn't transfer to mainstream society, as people certainly have different moral and societal standards. Also, if my opponent claims the black marker working as an advantage, then he must also claim the negative impacts associated with this; Including the fact that many people are killed when interacting with the black market in a death toll certainly higher that that of those whom die from not having a necessary organ fro trasnplant. As for Iran, the Government gave these financial incentives from their own federal budget [1] cross applying this with my own Argument 1, and we see that this is still something we cannot do. Secondly, Iran has a much different government style than we do; just because the iranian people where willing to donate organs via financial incentives, doesn't mean that american people would be willing. For all these reasons; I urge a Con vote.