April PFD Topic

First off all, I would like to make a point of clarification; in PFD debate, both sides have the burden of proof to prove their stance. At the point that one does not prove their stance (be it Pro or Con) the vote in the round must go to their opponent. That is the very reason that the sides in PFD debate are called Pro and Con as opposed to Affirmative and Negative. For instance, in Value debate the Affirmative always has the burden of proof to show why the resolution must be affirmed, where as the Negative's job is to show that the Affirmative is wrong; accordingly LD's design is set up to achieve this as the Affirmative always goes first, and the Negative always goes negative. Whereas in PFD either the Pro or the Con can go first, as both have a burden to prove and it doesn't matter who lays out their constructive first; they must both warrant their stance. That said I will now proceed to attack my opponent's Arguments. Contention 1: Capitalism I have several attacks here; a. Make a direct link to my observation 1, the resolution states that the government would "permit" financial incentives, it doesn't say that the government will provide these Financial incentives. Thus my opponent's argument on capitalism is not an issue in this debate, as capitalism doesn't have anything to do with the government allowing financial incentives. b. My opponent's link to the resolution here is vague at best; the only link he provides is a claim saying that by encouraging donation, something that by basic definition does not entail finance, that we support an economic ideal. However there is no warrant behind this argument; neither empirical nor philosophical; thus his link is broken and even if he can refute argument a, he will still have no impact here. c. My opponent provides no warrant for why capitalism is evil, he simply provides multiple claims that are in lines of something negative. thus he loses impact here twofold. Contention 2: Organ Are Not Property According to [1]princeton. edu, property is defined as "something owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by someone" people on their organs, thus organs are indeed property; and the basis of my opponent's claim falls. that said I still have a few argument here [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... a. My opponent builds this picture that organ donation is like a market, where people can simply buy and sell their organs at will; however the truth is far different that that. First of all, since these are donations, it is not a market situation. It's like when you send money into a charity and you receive a gift in return. My opponent however falsely assumes that this system is like buying a soda from a store. b. My opponent picks and chooses what he considers to be organs; thus he only partially proves his point. For example, he says that donating tissue is okay because it can grow back; but donation a heart s not okay since it cannot grow back. An organ however is simply part of a person's body essential to maintain homeostasis; therefore tissue, gametes, blood, lymph, and even skin are organs c. My opponent argues this contention from the stance that the organ is donated while the person is still alive, whereas organ donation is not something that occurs until after a person is already dead. Thus when a person is dead, no organ is vital; they're dead. Contention 3: I have plenty to say here, a. First make a direct link to what I've said prior to attacking his contentions, both my opponent and I have a burden to prove our stance; not just me. Therefore if my opponent puts this burden on me, he must make this same burden reciprocal upon himself. At which point I still win because my arguments have more merit and validity than m opponent's b. In PFD we argue the Pro's and Con's of a resolution; it is a debate of reciprocal burdens, not one where I must warrant this beyond the shadow of a doubt. If it where it would be impossible for me to win since selling organs is illegal; there is no way I can fairly argue under such an abusive burden. The warrant is within human nature. People want money, and will do whatever it take to get this money; if that means allowing your organs to be used to save lives after you no longer need them and are already deceased, then by all means it will be done. c. First off all my opponent of course has the right to extend any argument he makes in his constructive; just as I do. However in order for him to actually extend an argument, ad not simply be making a new argument; it must be in direct consistency with what he has already presented. It is utterly against the rules of PFD debate to present new information in a latter speech following the constructive. At this point I ask for a Pro ballot based on the content of this debate thus far, under the ground that my opponent provides no reason for voting Con.