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

Start on the NC. Start with his framework. First, my value supercedes his value. Valuing "inherent freedom" only begs the question of why that's something we should strive to achieve, which rests on moral justification. The only way his value makes sense is if my value gives it justification. Second, Even if we don't go with my value, I still link into his. I'm protecting everyone's inherent right to make autonomous decisions as well as preserving more lives which allows us to maintain our freedom to live. This means that not only can I achieve both frameworks while he can barely, if at all, achieve his own, but I achieve his framework better than he does. This means regardless of who's framework you look to in this debate, I'm winning it. Third, his criterion has absolutely no link to his value. He justifies the link by saying "it's the best tool with which to measure his value" but provides no warrant for why this is so. I provide clear lines of reasoning for the justification of my framework through the Papineau cards as well as the Preston and Waal cards, none of which were contested. Fourth, his criterion makes no sense for the resolution. It's impossible to universalize any kind of action in terms of organ procurement since each and every situation will be drastically different. Taking into account the deceased's wishes, their family's wishes, as well as the beliefs of different faiths will make creating a universalizable standard for organ procurement literally impossible. This means that regardless of what he's arguing on his contentions, they can't fulfill his standard, which means he's getting no offense off of his case. Then, go to his contentions. Group all of his contentions:I solve for this by not violating anyone's rights, but even if I violate some people's rights, a) I'm violating less people's autonomous rights than Neg is, and b) I present options for people who don't want to donate to state so. First, Presumed Consent literally solves for 100% of his contentional arguments by having an opt-out option. This is where if people don't want to donate their organs, they can officially have it recorded that they do not wish to have their organs donated for whatever reason. Upon their death their wishes will be recalled and their organs will remain with their person. This takes out literally every single problem my opponent has with presumed consent. It takes away his first contention because I don't violate anyone's rights since we give them the option to not donate if they don't want to, it takes away his second contention because I'm providing these specifics that I'm calling for (I'll address this more in detail later, though), I solve for contention three by giving ownership to people by allowing them to decide if they want to donate or not, and contention four just makes no sense to begin with: there are hundreds upon thousands of people dying from not having the organs they need to survive via transplantation. Presumed consent gets these organs better than the status quo. This means that presumed consent is 100% needed in order to save more lives. But go to his second contention in particular:First, I'm providing a lot of these specifics he's asking for via implimenting an opt-out policy for those who do not wish to donate, so I'm fulfilling his objection here. Second, even if I'm not, he's not providing a reason for why I have to. He's just saying that these questions about who's running the show and what happens if people freeze themselves to preserve their bodies and all that needs to be answered and if I don't answer them then you can't accept presumed consent, but that doesn't actually explain why I need to provide those answers, or why without those answers you can't accept presumed consent. Third, I really actually don't have to provide those answers. The resolution doesn't ask for a specific policy. All the resolution places on me to prove is that we ought to use some form of presumed consent system for organ procurement. The specifics are irrelevant. And, go to his fourth contention:His argument here literally makes no sense. He's conceded the Delmonico evidence which is showing you that in 2000 there were five THOUSAND people who were removed from the waiting list because they died. Saying that trying to save those lives is "unneeded" if anything is a far graver violation of our inherent freedoms than anything I could ever do on the aff. But furthermore, his artifical organs argument makes no sense. Refer back to my Abadie and Gay evidence where it's talking about how they did a statistical survey on organ procurement rates and measured with variables it's effect and showed that presumed consent was what was making the different in organ donations across the world. This makes his artifical organ point a) wrong, and b) irrelevant, since it's not that which will be providing the bulk of the organs we transplant. This takes out literally 100% of his case, meaning there's absolutely no offense for him to be gaining off of his case. This means you affirm right here right now because he's literally conceded 100% of my case and hasn't tried to respond to a single argument I make other than to say I don't make one (I'll go over his "responses" in a second). This means that at the end of the day when you're comparing the arguments, you're comparing arguments of his that have 3-4 responses per contention, plus a framework that a) I achieve better and b) he can't ever hope to achieve, against a case that's 100% dropped by the neg. Game over mistake from Ajabi. But then let's go over to the AC to address his refutations. First, don't let him bring up new arguments against my case in his next speech. He had the chance to respond to my case, and delaying refutations that I need to respond to to the very last speech that I get is insanely abusive, it's like holding out on your game-winning argument until your opponent doesn't have enough time to respond to it. This is,a) a completely unfair debate tactic to use, as it takes the goal of debate away from who's the better debater and puts it on who can use the most under-handed tactics, promoting unfairness. And fairness is important to debate because the role of the judges is to determine the better debating, which becomes next to impossible if one side starts to cheat. and b) incredibly unhealthy for debate as an activity, because it encourages people to not make use of all of their rounds to create clash and promote discussion. If people start to see that they can win by just holding all their good arguments until the last round and win because their opponent doesn't get enough time to respond to them, then the first few rounds become pointless, which cripples actual educational discussion. And education is important to debate because it's the only thing that gives debate out-of-round value: once the actual in-round competition has ended the only thing left is what you learned from the debate, but if we harm the actual educational value of debate then it becomes pointless. Second, his argument that I don't make the link between Papineau (laws of physics argument) and naturalism is 100% a lie and proof that Ajabi isn't reading my case very well. I'm clearly implicating that because the conservation of energy is saying that nothing abstract can spontaneously be created, the only thing that makes sense philosophically is something based within the existing, natural world, hence naturalism. The link is 100% explained and it's borderline offensive that he's saying I'm not explaining it. Third, it's also borderline offensive that he claims I'm not providing a "modal" even though I'm giving you a much better warranted value-criterion framework with which to judge arguments under. Fourth, his argument that I'm not showing how going from we 'ought' to donate affirms the resolution makes literally zero sense and literally ignores my second and third contentions, which are saying that people are dying without organs and that presumed consent solves for this loss of life. And because we have an obligation via empathy to help other people, presumed consent is the only viable option. It's as if he literally just did not read my case. Fifth, I'm showing you from my first round and this round why a) I'm best protecting people's rights and freedoms, including life and autonomy, while he's actually doing a worse job of protecting the things his entire case revolves around protecting. I'm the one who's going to be saving more lives, which a) outweighs literally everything because nothing about our rights and religious freedoms will matter if we all die anyway, and b) allows for more autonomous decisions about our freedoms to be made in the future, since we can't make decisions if we're dead. Moreover, I'm also covering for autonomy in the present by allowing people who don't want to donate to opt-out and not donate, which preserves their freedoms. This means that affirming is literally giving you the best of both worlds, while negating literally doesn't get you anything other than more dead people from not getting organ transplantations. Also, the argument that I need to provide syllogisms is stupid, there's no reason why I have to do this and there never has been. With that, extend the naturalism framework that goes 100% conceded, and extend my standard of engaging empathetically with others, which goes conceded as well. This means you're evaluating the debate under an empathetic viewpoint. Extend my contentions which show that we're obligated to help others, and that people are dying and that presumed consent solves for this death, all of which was conceded. This means you affirm because I'm showing through my contentions why we're obligated to presume consent.