A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

So my opponent's lack of responses to my case is his downfall in this debate. Let's start on the framework. Extend Bostrom, which explains how all ethical theories ought to put the preservation of humanity at the forefront. This goes 100% conceded and it provides the epistemic justification for Util because util weighs for what me best in society so that we can keep existing. Then, extend out my criterion of minimizing suffering. Since my opponent doesn't prove a framework of his own to evaluate the round under, you default to whoever best minimizes suffering. Since I'm the only one solving for extinction via zombies, I have the best link into my framework. His sole response to util is that it can't be based off of the physical, but that's not even responsive to util. I can concede that the argument he put forward there is true and it not harm util in the slightest. This means my framework of util goes 100% dropped.With that let's go down to my contentions. The key thing to note is that virtually all of my contention level arguments were dropped in my opponent's last round. He's conceded:1. That zombies are a threat to humanity and life everywhere.2. That outbreaks have occured in the past.3. That conventional thoughts and government responses won't solve the problem.4. That we need to do something now to solve the problem, and that waiting won't solve the problem.The only thing he's contesting is that stopping organ donation would impede the spread of Solanum. So let's go to it right now. First, I never argued that getting rid of organ donation will stop people from getting bit. Read the Brooks 4 card where it's saying that direct fluidic contact is how the virus spreads, not exclusively bites. So while bites and organ donation aren't the only methods of transmition, they're the methods most relevant to the resolution. We need to stop every method of transmission possible and focus our efforts on finding a way to fight or cure Solanum before we're all doomed to extinction.Second, it's not that we won't just transplant an organ with Solanum because a) refer back to Brooks 7 when it's talking about conventional responses and modes of thought fail to adequately handle the zombie threat, and b) refer to Brooks 2 where it's explaining how the medical knowledge we have now is insufficient to combat the Solanum threat. No antibiotics will work, immunization fails, we literally have no medical way to fight Solanum. Our only hope is to stop transplantation and focus 100% of our efforts to stopping Solanum. Third: The govenrment is so bad at stopping disease outbreaks that just "not transplanting infected organs" will fail and will fail hard. Look at the govenrment handling of Ebola. Sickles writes(1):"Investigators in Texas are trying to track down some 100 people who might have been in recent contact with Duncan, an Ebola patient. ... Federal guidelines ... advised someone in Duncan’s condition ... to be placed in isolation and tested for Ebola. Instead, Duncan was ... sent home. ... connections weren’t made related to travel history and symptoms, and the individuals caring for this individual did not think about the possibility of Ebola, ... Across the United States people don’t take the travel history as seriously as they need to.”" Since this effectively covers all the responses against the NC, I'll wrap up here. In conclusion:1. My opponent doesn't effectively respond to my Util argument. All he's responding to is that morality can't be based in the physical world, but that's not specific to Util. I can just concede to him there but still extend out Util since it can operate outside of that requirement. 2. He's conceding the Bostrom analysis which is saying that all ethical theories must be based in the preservation of humanity. Since I'm the only one trying to preserve humanity from extinction via the zombie horde, I'm the only one fulfilling my framework. And since my opponent doesn't provide a framework of his own to evaluate the resolution under, you have to default to mine. This means you're negating the resolution since I'm the only one with offense linking to a framework, and thus to the resolution. 3. He's conceded well over 90% of my contentional offense here, about how zombies are real and are a threat to mankind, how conventional responses are insufficient to deal with them and that we need to act now to stop the Solanum threat. 4. I'm proving that organ transplantation is one of the possible methods of transmission that the virus can use to spread, thus it needs to be stopped.5. I'm showing how conventional government protections are going to fail with the Sickles evidence. Sources:(1) - Sickles, Yahoo Jason. "Mishandling of U.S. Ebola Patient Prompts CDC Alert to Hospitals." Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 02 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Nov. 2014.