Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

I'll go over my opponent's arguments as well as my own, then provide some key voting issues. Opponent's CaseSolvencyPro claims that if a government inadequately communicates with it's people, they should institute a policy that "punishes" them for it (i. e. presumed consent). The problem is, the government will not be punished in an instance were presumed consent is instituted under circumstances with bad communication between the government and the people; the citizens of the society are the ones that will ultimately be punished, due to their obliviousness, which pro even notes. Pro's argument that the government *cannot* conceal information about presumed consent from it's people doesn't add anything to his case because this argument brings up a flaw with presumed consent, rather than proving it's effectiveness. As shown through a maximizing choice framework, societies that lack in communication (or value autonomy) would be better off under a mandated choice system. A mandated choice system forces citizens to choose when they get their drivers licences (or some other method) thus eliminating the need for effective communication between the government and the people as well as the problems that come with it because everyone is asked what they want to do with their organs. Also, pro basically drops all my evidence pertaining to the unlikelihood of presumed consent working in various countries. EconomySpain's success with donation rates can be attributed to other factors, as I explained before. Pro's claim that presumed consent is the best policy to use in the absence of other factors is not backed up by valid statistics. If you, as a judge, don't buy this, look to the flaws within the opt out system that stop presumed consent from achieving higher donation rates than my counter plans that I have noted (and will continue to stress on) throughout my case. Education Pro essentially furthers the argument he formed in rebuttal of the solvency point by explaining that some of the other plans I have proposed need a government that educates it's people. Look to the fact that two out of the three plans I have provided (organ sales and mandated choice) don't need a government that prioritizes education of the people because these plans do not involve "presuming" or "taking away" anything. FamilyPresumed consent can't "adopt the fairness from mc" as pro claims. Presumed consent implies an opt out system which is what pro has to defend in this debate. My CasePC can backfirePro clearly misunderstands my burden within the round. In order for me to negate the resolution at hand, I can do two things. (a) i can poke holes in the presumed consent policy and (b) i can provide counterplans. I have adequately done both. Through my framework of mandated choice, it is apparent that one single system cannot solve for every societies needs. All I have to do is prove that all my counterplans combined, when instituted in the most fitting society, will work more effectively than presumed consent. Even if I hadn't done this, my contention on presumed consent backfiring is enough to negate, especially since pro dropped most of my examples. Other choicesforced donationThis counter plan applies to only societies with a lower value on autonomy and a huge need for organs. To quote pro in the first round, "a just society would want to save more people than killing more people. " and mandatory choice does just this. Obviously, the most just policy would be the one that works towards making a society more just, taking into account social/political/economic factors. Mandatory choice, in a fitting situation, is a just action and is guaranteed to raise donation rates. mandated choicePro's attack that there is "no logical reason the other 24% won't be able to tell the hospital they don't want to donate" doesn't make any sense because under a mandated choice system, everyone is asked whether or not they want to donate. In fact, this problem as suggested by pro, should really be seen as a valid point for the con side, since I would agree that there is no logical reason to believe that individuals in a society with inadequate communication and a presumed consent system are likely to know whether or not to "opt out" of organ donation. organ salesOrgan sales are more apt to decrease the waiting list for organs pertaining to living transplantation. Pro basically explains that people wouldn't turn to a black market when "presumed consent" will give it to them for free. This is completely untrue because (due to the length of the waiting list) people often have to resort to using financial incentives to obtain organs, thus organ sales provide a legal revenue of obtaining life saving organs. Pro stresses that organ sales are unjust because organs are only given to the rich. I'll make a few points. Firstly, even if only the rich were obtaining organs, the waiting list for kidneys donated through transplants from the deceased would go down because rich people are obtaining more organs. Thus, poorer individuals are provided with a shorter waiting list. in case that didn't make sense ill put this in a syllogismP1: The waiting list is a list of everyone that needs organs. P2: People who legally buy organs are taken off the waiting list. P3: Organ sales will make the waiting list shorter. Secondly, the black market exploits the poor and causes numerous issues in the developing world. A legal version of obtaining organs is highly preferable to the currently existing legal tactic. Also, pro drops my Iran evidence in which I show the eradication of the black market via organ sales. ConclusionI'll just give some brief reasons as to why you should vote neg.1. Presumed consent can backfire. It did in Brazil and it likely would in the USA. Presumed consent doesn't work in countries like France where families don't discuss organ donation, nor does it work in countries whose government's don't effectively communicate with their people.2. My counterplans are more likely to be successful than presumed consent. I've shown empirical evidence that supports the legalization of organ sales, I've used pro's own case against him to further support mandatory choice, and I've shown mandated choice to be a more just option than presumed consent that can work in significantly more societies than presumed consent.