AAN-Tourney: This house would legalize the sale of organs.

May the best debator win. In this round I shall post my rebuttals and conclusion. My opponents refutations will be italic and underlined, while my rebuttals will be bold. I will also be ignoring some of Pro's refutations due to the character limit and also if I feel they are completely irrelevant to this debate. R1) Exploits the poor As I said before, millions of people are suffering, not because the organs do not exist, but because ‘‘morality’’ or “exploitation of the poor” does not allow them to have access to the organs. Now My opponent simply dismisses the rights of the poor, saying that the needs of the wealthy outweighs the priority scale which I provided during this argument. Not only will this decrease the price of organs and in turn exploiting sellers for less money than deserved. But people who are unable to afford organs will no longer be on a priority list but on a bidders list. This is unethical and my opponent has failed to refute it. R2) An organ is cheaper than imminent death from a wait list that is too long. Moreover, my opponent misrepresents my position. His use of the word “exploit” is mendacious. Exploit means “to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage”[2] I’d like to inquire from my opponent: who’d being exploited? Who is exploiting whom? The people being exploited are the poor who are obliged to sell their organs to pay off their debts as it will be marketed as a quick way to get rich and out of trouble. As well as people who are unable afford organs. My opponent may argue that it becomes cheaper, howerver there will still be needier people who's needs wont mean anything in a corporate market world. The sale of organs will be a voluntary transaction. Within an economy, suppliers are willing to supply goods at a certain price, and people will buy goods at that price. There may be negotiation and bidding, but at the end of the day, by making these organs available, everyone is better off. The people selling the organs benefit financially, and organs are made available. Why are we then preventing it? Should we then ban the sale of food because some people can’t afford it and it won’t be “fair? ” “The concept of human dignity does not demand that people should be forced to die a premature death where an illness can be cured nor that people who donate organs should die of hunger and their families be left to starve. ”[3]My opponent makes a poor analogy to the organ market being equivalent to the food market. Food can be grown and harvested, It is not eaten or traded at the physical expense of other human beings. This is a very fallacious analogy and I don't have the character limit to disprove it in full detail. R3) Corporate Marketing This is an unwieldy, unsourced, unsubstantiated assumption and an appeal to consequentialism, which Con cannot prove. Then he falsely assumes that people in "impoverished areas" have the correct or healthy organs and would be marketed to for supply. Impoverished people tend to be unhealthy. Who wants an impoverished kidney when you can have a healthy one? If a business gets a reputation for that, which would be inevitable due to the information age, it’s ruined. My opponent has stated herself that the sellers of kidneys would be the one's who need are convinced by the money incentive. These people would most likely be impoverished. I did not make a claim that all poor people have healthy kidneys and my opponent has not proven that all impoverished people have unhealthy kidneys. My argument is purely about the corporate marketting of this would aim at impoverished people and would unfairly force them into making a transaction so they can get out of financial troubles. Also, wouldn’t this form of targeting occur even with a black market? Maybe the marketing wouldn't be as well-known, but it quite likely still occurs, and it's even worse because: My opponent questions my argument then uses it against me. Yes, the black market absolutely uses this method and it is clearly unethical. I fail to see how this is a positive contention for my opponent. These organ transactions are also highly illegal and are not condoned. R4) Concerning the Bangladesh example, Con’s argument in a syllogism: P1) If (x) law will be abused in (y) country, (x) law shouldn't exist. P2) (x) law will be abused in (y) country. C1) Therefore, (x) law shouldn't exist. This is a flawed syllogism because literally any law or stipulation can be abused or misused. Foreign aid is often abused, but that doesn't mean that we should abolish all foreign aid. People depend on it. My opponent took my argument completely out of context, The Islam account was just a mere illustration to paint the picture of the depth of exploitation which can occur on the poor. My opponent has falsley put my sources into a syllogism and tried to claim I made this argument. R5) Image of the Poor Con cannot prove causation and is acting off a mere assumption. If one thinks that something makes you look "selfish and inconsiderate," should it be outlawed? Should we outlaw two-piece swimsuits, even shopping, if I say they look "selfish and inconsiderate? " This isn't an adequate criterion, and thus the contention falls. I don't understand in what context this rebuttal is being made, I'll ask my opponent to address what is being refuted next time. I made no Contention called "Image of the Poor" R6) The rich will get priorities over the needy I already stated why this is not immoral. I stated in round one, why the prevention of the legalization of organ sales is actually immoral. My opponent's argument is simply her opinion that the rich should have priorities over the needy, she has provided no evidence for why this is moral or logical. She has simply said that the increase in saved lives is enough to dismiss the grand scale of corporate exploitation. R7) Organs being auctioned off to the highest bidder prioritizes the rich over the needy. Iran currently is the only place that allows the sales of organs. With the legalization in other countries, systems can be put in place to establish a proper market. As said before, by economic laws: where there isThis is the first mention of legal organ trading in a foreign country, I cannot be expected to now consider this undeveloped unsourced argument R8) Profit over People My opponent relies on bare assertions to fulfil his arguments. As said before, with an increase in supply, the prices will drop, making it easier to afford. He doesn’t contest this. An increase in supply is also an increase in profit on balance, this leads to an unfair cut for the poor as the price for their organs is dropping. R9) Eclipsing Organ Donations People who currently give their organs, without financial benefits, are doing so out of altruism -- out of love for a family, or friend, or another human being. They're not being paid for it, but are inconveniencing themselves and paying a personal cost to benefit someone else. Do you, Con, think, people would literally abandon any altruistic tendencies they may have had? It is reasonable to assert that if you can get paid for doing something for free, why would you do it for free? My opponent has not denied that this would dramatically decrease organ doning and thus collapsing the current system, prioritizing the needy over the rich. Which is not discriminative against the rich. If a rich person is needier than a poor person he will get the organ first. This is a fair and egalitarian system. It's unethical to put a price on a life. R10) Maximization of profit Con insinuates that firms maximize revenue when prices are as high as possible. This is incorrect. Firms maximize revenue when the marginal cost equals marginal revenue. When you increase the supply of something, you decrease its costs because your reduced its scarcity. You reduced the costs in the factor markets -- there are more organs, meaning that costs of inventory are down -- and therefore allow businesses to lower their prices in order to sell more. When prices fall, more people are willing and able to buy things. Again, with a realistic application of this argument. The poor will be the most cheated by the maximization of profits. With the decrease in price they will be selling for less. Conclusion: I have rebutted all of my opponents refutations and strongly believe that I should recieve arguments for this debate. I have succesfully shown how under legal organ trading a corrupt system will be put into place prioritizing wealth over health. Not only is this unethical but implies that lives can be purchased with matierialistic wealth. Currently the organ donation system optimizes effeciency by providing the sickest people with donated organs first. My opponent has simply claimed that because more lives are saved it is admissable. She has not provided a proper case and therefor I believe I should win this debate. Thank you,