Deceased donor organ donation ought to be opt-out

Well, I have clearly lost the spelling and grammar vote for this debate (I apologise if it caused any hassle in understanding what I meant) I even spell checked it but, alas, there were mistakes nonetheless.Now I shall reinforce my argument by defending against the attacks my opponent raised in round two.Defense Against Rebuttal One: The IntroductionMy opponent begins by telling me that he will of the deceased person will override that of the next of kin. Firstly, this contradicts his entire round one argument that a dead body shouldn't be seen as capable of having will or being, in any way, 'a person'. Secondly, this is fundamentally impossible because there is no way in a system of assumed consent to express consent so as to override the wishes of the next of kin. My opponent assumes that the next of kin would know the wishes of the deceased person but my point is that some family members will still object to it regardless of the deceased person's wishes (but if my opponent holds the view that a deceased person shouldn't be considered worthy of having will then this would be fine according to them... Except that contradicts his entire rebuttal that the deceased should have the power to override the next of kin's wishes).Essentially, the first problem with the rebuttal my opponent put forth was that the deceased person, if wishing to not have his/her organs removed, would have the power to override the wishes of the next of kin. This contradicts my opponent's philosophy of a dead person not being worthy of such privilege as declaring rights over his/her organs. The second is that in my opponent's proposed system, it is fundamentally impossible for a dead person to express an overriding will to donate organs in a way that would override the objection of the next of kin. Thus, in my opponent's system the will of the dead person isn't appreciated anyway thus destroying his entire rebuttal altogether.Defense Against Rebuttal Two: Legal Right Vs. Moral ValueMy opponent explains that while he realises that, by the fact a will exists for possession sharing, a dead body has some legal rights, he thinks, regardless of this, that the person has no moral value. The reasoning behind this is that since the dead body has no capacity for emotion, they are therefore not a moral agent.The first, rather ironic, defense against this rebuttal is that most Gods of any religion are seen as completely non-physical entities of raw power. How can an entity with no hormones to initiate emotions, no physical stimuli to stimulate the initiation of any emotion in the first place then be considered to feel emotion? (http://www.mkprojects.com...)God(s) is/are the moral guide(s) of almost every religion, par Buddhism, known to mankind today. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Thus, if the moral guide of the majority of the world is an entity that has no hormones or physical stimuli for emotion than wouldn't it be foolish for my opponent to take the Nihilistic view of morality so as to attach it to subjective emotion? (http://atheistempire.com...)The second rebuttal is that my opponent has not proved morality to be subjective as opposed to objective and thus needs to assert Moral Nihilism (which, unlike Utilitarianism, appreciates that morality is only possible from a subjective standpoint). My opponent claims to be Utilitarian in their view but Utilitarianism is an objective moral philosophy and thus attaches no subjectivity, or emotion, to one's validity in moral agency.Defense Against Rebuttal Three: I'm Not Sure What This Was AboutMy opponent seemed to be rambling about how a self-inflicted individual, according to Utilitarianism is still more valuable than a dead person regardless of their self-inflicted harm. Not only is this purely base don my opponent's system of morality alone but it is also irrelevant to the point which he was rebutting.I was explaining that the real issue should be prevention of organ damage as opposed to assuming consent of people to give up their organs just for the sake of saving individuals who are very often self-inflicting this harm (I also could not find any statistics and am in a similar situation to my opponent in ignorance of this fact but it is very likely to be above 50% since the cause for transplant not usually cancer).Defense Against Rebuttal Four: IrrelevanceMy point was an entertaining display of the prevention versus cure argument. It wasn't irrelevant to the debate and should be considered as a valid part of line that argumentation.Defense Against Rebuttal Five: Ignorance of Legal Age of ConsentA person under eighteen can't deny having their organs taken because no one under the age of eighteen will ever be demanded to do so (this isn't 'My Sister's Keeper'). Also, no one under the legal age of consent can go, via school, to express their lack of consent past the age of consent because they are not yet at the age of consent to begin with. That is like asking a child under eighteen to sign a form to allow a pedophile to have sex with them, it entirely ignores what the age of consent is in the first place.In summary, my birthday dilemma is actually extremely valid in a system of presumed consent.Defense Against Rebuttal Six: Money, Money, MoneyThe cost of time and effort for hospital workers to waste on testing unhealthy organs for transplantation is HUGE! Let's face it; most people too lazy to sign a form are too lazy to keep healthy. Rarely is a person too lazy to go for a walk a day and to stop stuffing hot dogs and burgers down their throat going to suddenly find the willpower to sign a non-consent form so as to save hospital testing time. the system of informed consent is far superior to the system of presumed consent because every single person who has informed of consent has also been tested and declared healthy enough to donate in the first place. Therefore, the 80% of people who wanted to consent couldn't have consented anyway and frankly the lazy 60% were probably unhealthy considering that laziness as well. Just because it costs less money doesn't mean that the time and effort wasted are negligible at all, in fact they are so huge that it probably would stop people being saved in the end anyway, cancelling out what the system was meant to achieve in the first place.