April PFD Topic

“1. My opponent still doesn't solve for the issue we are debating; thus he is off topic, and cannot hope to win this debate. He never proves that financial incentives would save all of these people from dying either, again adding to the mix that death is unavoidable; and my opponent has no impact in this round. By default you must vote Con. ” I am afraid the Con is confused the issue we are debating is whether “The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. ” I do not have to prove that financial incentives would save all of those currently waiting for a life saving organ, I just have to show that by allowing financial incentives we can encourage organ donation. The Con’s burden is to prove that financial incentives would not encourage organ donation if anyone is guilty of being off topic it is the Con. The Con’s first argument “The united states' substantial debt and organ donation is costly” fails to prove that financial incentives would not encourage organ donation, if anything his fear of it bankrupting the US government must mean that the Con believes there will be a substantial amount of people encouraged to donate organs which will in turn, he wrongly believes, bankrupt the US government. He does little to address the point raised that the resolution does not state that the US government will have to pay for the financial incentives. It only has to permit them, the only proof the Con offers is his belief that “the most plausible thing, is that it would indeed be the government giving out these financial incentives. ” And he thinks this is plausible because of the word donation? Even though I provided two examples of donors (sperm and egg), who receive financial incentives which come from private institutions or individuals, not the US government. The Con’s second argument “Families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated” again does not prove that the use of financial incentives will discourage organ donation. The Con cheaply tries to claim a victory “my opponent agrees to this point, so I already win this area. ” But it has nothing to do with our resolution so I’m not sure exactly what he is winning. As I correctly pointed out it is a flaw with the “Nobel” system he is trying to protect at the price of human lives. The Con’s third argument Compensation does not equate payment. “Again extend my argument that "Financial Incentives" is going to be more akin to a gift than a payment for services rendered;” The Con is attempting to redefine his original definition “1. Financial incentives: monetary compensation for organs. ” But even if we allow this it does not prove that that the use of financial incentives will discourage organ donation. The Con is trying to win this debate by saying once you allow financial incentives then they aren’t donating organs they are selling them, so donated organs aren’t increasing. Again I’ll point out the sperm donor who is paid, which the Con ignored, and I’ll ask what of a person who makes a donation to a charity, and receives a tax break because of it, is that not a form of a US government financial incentive designed to encourage donation. Are they not donors because they benefit from their donation? “As for my opponent's final argument regarding the black market, and Iran;…” I have to take umbrage with this statement, this is simply poor form on the part of the Con, to suggest I have introduced a new argument, I only answered his call for evidence of the obvious “… nor does he prove that financial incentives would change the status quo. ” Then right after asking the honorable audience to dismiss the evidence provided. WHAT HO! ! The Con tries to refute it poor form, poor form. The Con’s own arguments show that he knows that financial incentives would encourage organ donation His fear of bankrupting the US Gov is proof of that. His attempts to swing the debate on semantics or debate policy and not presenting on topic arguments that refute the resolution speak volumes. Since this debate started over 200 people have died waiting for an organ, the United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation, ask yourself, if it did, would some of those people still be alive.