BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This policy will save lives. Under the status quo, people who are willing to donate their organs in...

This policy will save lives. Under the status quo, people who are willing to donate their organs in principle do not register as donors because they cannot be bothered to. As a consequence of their indifference, people die waiting for organs, while perfectly good ones are buried or cremated with the corpses of their owners. The problem is that people face no incentive to register as donors, because there is no penalty for not registering and no reward for signing up. This policy would provide them with a very strong incentive to register – the possibility of dying because they have not registered as a donor. That would raise the number of donors, thus raising the number of transplants, and saving more lives.
If people expect to receive organs from others, they should be willing to donate theirs. This comes...

If people expect to receive organs from others, they should be willing to donate theirs. This comes from the concept of moral reciprocity – in other words, that living morally involves acting towards others in a way that you would be happy for them to act towards you. To expect other people to be willing to donate their organs to you when they die, and yet to not believe that you have an equal duty to donate your organs to others, is to deny that your moral actions have to be reciprocal – that you should treat other people as you wish to be treated. Moreover, it cannot be the case that you would see your actions as universalizable if you do not become a donor – you would not accept it as a law of nature that people behave as you do. If everyone acted as you did, there would be no organs available from donors, and everybody requiring transplants would die. It is plausible to believe that acting morally involves ‘doing your bit’ for society – not free riding on the good will of others. Therefore, people can have no moral claim over organs for transplants if they have not declared themselves willing to donate too.
Everyone has a moral obligation to become organ donors anyway. Not signing up for the organ donors ...

Everyone has a moral obligation to become organ donors anyway. Not signing up for the organ donors register condemns other people to death for almost no benefit to you – this is different from murder in all but name. Suppose you walk past a child drowning in a pond. You can swim, and are able to save that child. If you do not jump in to save the child because you don’t want to get your jacket wet, we may legitimately see you as some kind of moral monster – you have behaved monstrously in allowing the child to drown. Those who do not sign up for the organ donors register simply because they cannot be bothered are behaving in a similar way to the man who lets the child drown – they refuse to make even the smallest of sacrifices when others stand to gain a huge amount. We should not, as a society, tolerate such behaviour, and are perfectly justified in punishing transgressors in the way the policy sets out.
The biggest objection to becoming an organ donor – religious objection – is overcome by an in-built ...

The biggest objection to becoming an organ donor – religious objection – is overcome by an in-built sincerity test. If a person’s religion prohibits organ donation, then it must equally be the case that the religion would not permit organ transplants. This would be the case for religions that require bodies to be buried ‘whole’ – a body is broken up in a transplant operation just as much as it would be from removing a organ from a copse for donation. Religious objections to this policy must, therefore, be hypocritical. Furthermore, the religious objection is possibly overstated. Most religions have requirements to do all that is possible to save lives. Judaism is often cited as a religion that opposes organ donation, even though in fact Jews are obliged to donate organs if it can save a life. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions, also permit organ transplants (so long as the organs are drained of blood).
Bodily autonomy cannot hold for the dead. An objection to policy based on individuals’ rights to se...

Bodily autonomy cannot hold for the dead. An objection to policy based on individuals’ rights to self-ownership cannot hold in this case, since the relevant bodies are those of the dead. It is built in to the concept of right that it is held by an interested party – but the dead, being dead, have no interests and consequently cannot be considered as rights-bearing agents. If a corpse cannot have a right to bodily autonomy, it must follow that no autonomy is violated when we remove organs from the dead. Moreover, the state does not deny people self-ownership with this policy, since not donating is still permitted. The state is not making organ donation compulsory, simply making people face up to the costs of their decisions for others.
This policy will save lives. Under the status quo, people who are willing to donate their organs in...

The policy requires condemning non-donors to death when there are more palatable alternatives. Nearly as many lives could be saved by closing the organ shortfall with incentive schemes or an opt-out system. The fact that so many people do not become organ donors simply because they do not bother to sign up indicates why an opt-out system would be so successful – those who have strong objections to being organ donors can elect not to, while the majority who do not object become eligible donors. If the gap between supply and demand could be closed without this policy, even more lives would be saved (since everyone requiring a transplant, including non-donors, would survive). In addition, in some countries even if the deceased had signed the donor register, the permission of their nearest relatives is required before organs can be removed. This is a further restriction (relatives may have religious views the deceased did not share) that could be removed to ensure a greater supply of organs.
If people expect to receive organs from others, they should be willing to donate theirs. This comes...

Moral reciprocity does not necessitate performing identical acts. I can consistently believe that I have a moral duty to treat people as I would want to be treated without doing the same things for others as they do for me. The reciprocity is in terms of more basic ideals, such as equal concern for others and respect for the moral obligations I have towards others. In this example, a person with strong religious objections to being an organ donor could ‘do his bit’ for society by contributing in other ways – by donating large sums of money to charity for example. This should not mean that he becomes ‘morally ineligible’ to receive an organ in a transplant because, all things considered, he has carried out his duty towards other people (just in a different way to the organ donor). To draw on another analogy: we do not all expect to have moral obligations to save fire-fighters when they are trapped, since we are not able to do so (other fire-fighters will help them). Rather, we fulfil our duty towards fire-fighters by helping them in other ways that we are able to.
Everyone has a moral obligation to become organ donors anyway. Not signing up for the organ donors ...

There is a relevant moral difference between killing someone and being a bystander to their death. If there wasn’t, then all kinds of bizarre moral burdens would arise: for example, it would become obligatory to donate all disposable income to charity, in order to save those starving in the developing world (with the consequence that nobody could pursue any personal projects or engage in personal spending beyond that required for survival). The drowning child analogy is misleading, since in that case you are the only person able to save the child – it would be quite different if the pond was surrounded by lots of people, all able to save the child (especially if some of the other people were better placed than you to intervene, a lifeguard for example). However, even if we accept that people who do not donate their organs are immoral, is death an appropriate punishment for this transgression? Because, of course, death is the potential punishment this policy recommends.
The biggest objection to becoming an organ donor – religious objection – is overcome by an in-built ...

Some religious cultures could prohibit donation while not prohibiting transplants for their members. Non-universalistic religions, such as the Shinto, and some Gypsy cultures disfavour organ donation, but do not necessarily believe it inappropriate for non-members to donate organs, and for their members to receive such organs in a transplant. It is also not the case that, just because the religious objection is overstated, that the objection does not exist. As mentioned above, there are religions and cultures that prohibit organ donation; there are others where donation falls into a grey area. The main controversy for Jews and certain Christians is their definition of dead, which is restrictive and rules out many cases where people’s organs are taken (e.g. when organs are taken from the brain-dead whose hearts are still beating). In these cases, the state should permit people to practise religion according to their interpretation, and not hand out de facto death penalties for holding a particular religious view.
Could save £100 million a year!

The population of Britain is currently 67 million [[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_population_of_the_United_Kingdom]]. this means that each person, would save £1.49 a year by reheating hot drinks. This is not going to help any individual stave off the effects of the recession and it certainly will not help our government who currently are in £101.3 billion debt [[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=277]].
Could save £100 million a year!

Wrap, a government waste watchdog, has released statistics stating that Britain loses 100 million a year by throwing away hot drinks that have gone cold. Given that we are in a credit crunch, this £100 million a year could be used by the public to help their economic situation without relying on government help. This is such an easy change to make in order to stave off poverty. No one loses out in this scenario. The public get a cup of tea, they save a good few pounds a year and the government will have to help less people out of relative poverty.
Reheating is 5 times better for the environment

Reheating a hot drink gone cold is 5 times better for the environment than making a new cup the Government waste watchdog Wrap has revealed in its latest survey. Whilst some may see the kettle and the microwave as using the same amount of electricity this is in fact not the case. It would only take a short 10 seconds blast of a conventional microwave to reheat a medium sized cup of tea. The kettle would take longer to boil – especially as people do not like boiling the same water in the kettle twice. Also, a microwave will only heat the cup of tea you put in there, with a kettle, people often put more water in than they will use, so power is being wasted on pointlessly boiling water. We also need to take into consideration, the milk, sugar and tea bag production of carbon emissions. By not remaking the cup of tea, we save on all of this carbon.
Tea is something to be enjoyed

Britain loves its tea. It is culturally known for us to love a good cup of tea. How can we love a cup of tea that has been reheated? It would not taste the same and it would not be as enjoyable. Reheating in the microwave causes a film to develop due to the milk. This would make having a cup of tea more dreadful than enjoyable. The advice issued by the watchdog of waste poses a threat to how people view their tea break rather than encouraging people to be less wasteful.
Be less wasteful – don’t drink tea

This really depends what the alternative is. Tea may have to be boiled in a kettle so contributing CO2 emissions and occasionally reheated. However if the alternative is any kind of canned, or even bottled drink then their emissions are likely to be as bad. Such drinks are processed, packaged (often in environmentally wasteful plastic rather than cardboard for tea) and are both bulkier and heavier for transporting than the equivilant amount of tea. From a liter bottle of coke you will only get about five cups whereas one box of tea will normally give 50-100 teabags and potentially double that number of cups! Even with the occasional reheating Tea is environmentally friendly.
Be less wasteful – don’t drink tea

Let the point be heard that if someone can easily and regularly forget about their cup of tea which is going cold, then they surely cannot anticipate and long for tea that much. Therefore, why do they not drink a cold drink to begin with? If people are prone to forgetting about hot drinks it seems that the most environmentally friendly thing for them to do, is not to spend more money and carbon emissions on reheating the drink, but by steering clear of hot drinks altogether? Wraps advice goes considerably shorter than this, which is why perhaps they have only reduced Britain’s wastage cost per household by 30p a week. There would be bigger savings if people gave up tea altogether.
Cold tea tastes nice and a lot of people like cold coffee too.

Cold tea is actually quite a pleasant taste. Warming it up again doesn't do that much for the flavour. If you don't like your tea so much that you have to make it warm to disguise the taste, why drink it? If you make the tea first thing before you go to sleep and leave the tea bag in your tea overnight, the next day it really brings out the taste and it will keep you awake all day. Hot foods are bad for you.Someone burnt her esophagus/oesophagus eating something hot. [[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071119131031AAsrcFn]] [[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090330084343AAA4qGv]]
Our organs are our property to sell.

Organs aren't straightforwardly your property because they are necessary for your life, and your right to life isn't waivable or transferrable. Not everything you own can be sold on. Your prescription medicine is technically yours, but you can't legally sell on your prescription medicine. The same is technically true of some games. It may be legal to DONATE organs, but that is all it is donating. What are you going to do with your organs when you are dead and buried in the ground? Nothing. And as said above we need most of our organs in order to survive, but why not give something you dont need without having to be reimbursed for it. Even if many people are actually the right match, they are still froced to donate their organs through emotional manipulation, through this is can cause all types of stress and anxiety for the donator. Another point is that millions of years ago, the first person to be created had been fromed with organs, this had actually created their lives, so why not prevent the face of the earth from being wiped out, by forgetting about history? If there was no law against selling organs, people too poor to support themselves would sell their organs to survive and they would sill live in poverty, living from paycheck to paycheck.
Our organs are our property to sell.

There is no law against selling your own property. Your organs belong to you. Surely it is especially important that they belong to you - they are part of your body, you don't want them to be just on loan to you! Nobody else has a legal claim to them, therefore nobody else has a right to tell you whether you can sell them or not. Therefore, you have the right to sell them. Side opposition would tell you that organ's can't be transferred because they necessary for your life. Consider, however, that organ donations are legal. Clearly the government does allow you to transfer your organs, just not for monetary recompense.
Encourages donors.

The flip side to this is that people will stop wanting to donate organs for free at all - meaning that it is going to cost hospitals millions to get all the organs they need, and the NHS is already underfunded. It also means that people will be attracted to the idea of selling organs when they aren't medically fit to - even though there would be safeguards, people will constantly be trying to commit fraud and cheat on tests to get through them.
Encourages donors.

There is a constant need for organ donors for life-saving operations. People are greedy - they are going to be more motivated to give you their organs if they think they will get money for it. Regarding the points in the "No" section: The first point is only true if you would limit sale to a single governmental purchaser - such as the NHS. Although adding increase complexity to the situation, it may be permissible to allow highly regulated private sales. However, personally, I agree that sale should be restricted to a single body to avoid abuse. On that note, even if the NHS would have to purchase the organs - say, £15k for a kidney - this is still drastically less than the costs of maintaining a patient on dialysis for the rest of their lives. Also, the quality of life received from a donation as opposed to dialysis is extreme. Regarding the second point, you are drastically undercutting the effectiveness of such procedural safeguards that could be implemented. Even the simplest of tests could ensure sold organs would be free from disease - how would someone cheat a blood test?
A good last ditch way of getting money.

This is a massive opportunity for vulnerable people to be exploited - people shouldn't be allowed to get into this state, they should be helped, not expected to sell their organs. Secondly, selling your organs is not a good way to get out of poverty. It provides a single cash-infusion, coupled with increased life-time health-care costs. In order to extricate yourself from poverty you need steady, reliable income.
A good last ditch way of getting money.

Most people have organs, and there are much more people who can't get work, who are in serious poverty and don't have anything else they can sell. Organs go for thousands of pounds - easily enough to get someone enough food to last them for a few months and somewhere to sleep while they sort their lives out Regarding the "no" arguments: First, I agree that it is terrible that people live in poverty - but simply saying that they "should be helped" doesn't really cut the mustard - how do you plan to remove all poverty? Second - although illegal organ sales in countries such as India have demonstrated that the money received isn't enough to remove them from poverty (because the amounts received are around £3-5k if that!), the amounts that could be paid in a developed country like the UK may indeed be enough to pay off debts, put down a deposit, rent a flat for a few months - £15k can achieve a lot!
opportunity for corruption

Regardless of whether the practice already exists, it is clear that legalizing it would aggravate it. Not only that but it seems like the person would become like a marketplace selling his organs!!!! If someone dies then if he or she have mentioned that they want to donate their kidney for example to help someone then it is fine but otherwise if we thought about it, suppose that the person starts selling his kidney or any other organ of his body basically he or she are doing it for money but what if the person's other kidney get damaged then what will the person do. Besides it will be a stronger cause of corruption because many people are poor and need money to feed their famillies so they sell their kidneys however this may cause future health problems to that person. Using the word 'advertising' to say that you want to sell your oragn is a word that chose how people's life and organs specifically does not matter much. Even though we are helping someone else but it selling your kidney shouldn't have a market for it !!!!!?????? Just do it if you can and not becuase you have to because of poverty which in many cases this is the situation.
People can't be bought and sold.

It would only be legal for you to sell your own organs with your own informed consent. People are always temporarily selling themselves with their own informed consent, its called working for a wage. I always find the slavery comparison slightly frustrating. Noone who advocates the permissibility of organ sale says that you should be able to sell yourself. This is just a gross exaggeration of the point. Now you may be thinking, what is to stop me doing so? Well, the law. It is entirely, 100%, definitely possible to limit which organs a person can sell, and just how many of them. For example, you should not be able to sell vital organs - otherwise this would in effect be murder, brining in issues such as euthanasia. Anti-market individuals always take points to the extreme, without realising that there is a middle ground that can easily be achieved! We can permit the sale of organs, and we can limit this through strict regulation!
People can't be bought and sold.

An organ, as part of the body, is a part of a person. People can't be bought and sold - article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 'No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.' (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) - so it shouldn't be legal to sell a part of a person - otherwise you would be able to sell a whole person and just say you are selling lots of parts of a person at once.
organs woud be ony accesible for those who have money

It wouldn't have to be the patient who paid. I mean, in the UK for example, the money would have to come from the NHS, which might mean a rise in taxes, but really, if it saves lives, isn't it worth it? Even without a National Health Service, other countries could still fund the organ selling, and therefore help to save many lives. Anyway, some people may still donate organs just because they think its the right thing. If so, the patients wouldn't have to pay any more than normal in counties such as America for such an operation. I don't know how much they have to pay; being a UK citizen, I'm used to a free health service, a very useful and good thing.
Soicial Networking Sites are a Time-Waster

Imagine the following scenario... you work for a business that i run. I pay you $10/hour to do your assigned tasks. You work for 8 hours a day. If you spent 1 hour every day on social networking sites chatting with your buddies and not doing your work, you just ripped me off for $10. It's no different than you coming to my home and stealing $10 out of my wallet. This all adds up too. Even if you only spend 10 mins. a day, you rip me off for about $30 every month, or $360 every year. Remember, time is money. Doing personal things on your boss's time IS STEALING. Playing online can wait until you're off work.
of course they should

I myself don't work in an office environment, I'm a manual worker. If I stop producing work so that I can chat to whom ever passes by or I decide to phone up my friends or, even dig out my Iphone to trawl the internet, (let's face it, that's what it is) then I wouldn't be in that job for much longer. Why should it be any different for an office worker? As for using social networking sites to contact employees of another company to discuss anything work related, that's what telephones are for, or, and get this, E-mail. There is absolutely no excuse for being on these sites during working hours. If you can't stay off these sites for more than a few hours each day, then I suggest you get help for your addiction/problem, or better still, go out and meet people, have a life and make new friends, preferably ones that are real. If you still can't stay off them, then let someone who's actually willing to work at their desk have your job. Remember there's plenty out there who want it.