Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

Jack here. Let's see what our good friend Debatability has to say. Solvency: If the government cannot communicate well, then the most just policy is a policy that punishes the government for not communicating well with the public. If the government want more organ donation rates, then it should tell the public about organ donation instead of muddling the public and putting them in a bowl of obliviousness. "Conceal don't feel don't let them know. .. well know they know. .. .Let it go, let it go, can't hold it back any more. .. " --Elsa [BONUS: watch video] . http://www.youtube.com... We see here Elsa clearly knows what she's talking about. (Just a little joke, the quote here is only to make a point and summarize my argument) It makes sense. The government cannot conceal its facts along with presumed consent and expect this to be considered "just". The government has to release information, otherwise they'll receive loads and loads of complaints. With the hiding of such important information, the government wouldn't need an organ donation policy. People would be unwilling to donate organs even if they were required by law, since the government didn't serve its duty. People would revolt until the government released some law requiring classes that talk about organ donation, its problems, its benefits, all that important information. Thus this point is moot because within these governments, all the policies would be equally "just". Economy: With the addition of all those other policies, Presumed consent is brought out to its best. Other countries must have similar policies too. Yet they can't reach Organ-donation-number-one, Spain. Presumed consent is best out of the bare policies by themselves if you don't have other quality services available. If you do, that's great. Then you can maybe even beat out Spain if you try to adopt its policies in a similar way. Education: Education is education is education. The other policies would only be as just as presumed consent. We are assuming the same amount of education applies to the country, only different policies. For example, if a country does not educate its citizens about organ donation, it would be equally unjust for presumed consent to take place in comparison to manual consent. No information, no communication, equals unjust, regardless of the policy used. Thus all policies are tied here for being most just. Family: So. .. ? If my opponent really thinks mandated choice is the better option, then wouldn't it be more just for presumed consent to adopt as much fairness from M. C. , rather than NOT have the donor have the final say? PC can back-fire: Oh ho ho, no no no, you're quite inaccurate there Debatability. In order to prove presumed consent NOT the best policy there is, there has to be some other policy that works in more types of societies. Other choices: F. D. : It's indeed just for those that need organs, but it is not just for those that don't want to donate their organs. People need freedom of choice. Presumed consent is more just because now at least some people can reject giving their organs by saying so. M. C. : "there is no logical reason to believe that 76% of individuals would become organ donors under such a system. " Then there is no logical reason to believe that the other 24% will be able to tell the hospital they don't want to donate. The less frustration and hard-work, the more just! Majority rules! O. S. : "Even if it were, presumed consent could never eradicate a waiting list for organs. " Neither could organ sales. .. "Thus, individuals with need for organs are apt to turn to the black market and pay for organs. " What! How could the black market even get those organs! And why would people want to pay for organs when they get it free through presumed consent! "A safe and legal manner of obtaining organs through money without a waiting list will cause such a market to disappear. " Still, this system is unjust because the rich can obtain the organs, while those poor cannot. If the poor can at least get the organ for free, they at least have time to garner up money for the surgery if the threat is immediate. On the other hand, making organs worth money would give less time to immediate threats. In addition, since organs are worth money now, the so called "black market" would want to rob graves and illegally steal the organs. Legalizing organ sales creates a similar problem to not allowing organ donation OR sales at all. Very unjust if you ask me. In conclusion, I have won this debate. I've countered every one of Debatability's plans, and constructed excellent cases for why Presumed Consent is the most just policy, while other policies may not be as just as P. C. in most cases, or even in some, merely tied as the most just policy. However, I wish this was 5 rounds; this was the most fun debate I've had in a long time. Debatability was a good and challenging opponent, and regardless of the outcome, I'd say this is one of my true debate favorites.