Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to note that we are not debating the LD resolution. The resolution we are debating is: A presumed consent system of organ donation (for the deceased) is the most just policy. Unlike the LD resolution, this resolution doesn't necessarily pertain to "what just societies would do" rather, it pertains to what societies as a whole should do. Therefore, as a judge, don't listen to any claims by pro pertaining to a just society already having attributes that would caused presumed consent to be successful.Opponent's CaseFor ease in reading, I'll divide pro's arguments into a few categories: solvency, economy, education, and family.SolvencyPro's first point can be split up into two claims (a) organs are needed and (b) presumed consent solves this need. I agree with point a; point b is what I will stress on. Firstly, pro's Stanford evidence actually brings doubt to the success of presumed consent (1). This article talks about the probability of the term "presumed consent" leading to fear and public criticism. Look to my example of Brazil in my first contention in my constructive. Societies without a means of having their government efficiently communicate with their people can not successfully implement a presumed consent system because they will likely face the same effects as Brazil. Moreover, this article notes, "Efficacy alone will not determine if presumed consent can be adopted in the United States. Understanding the cultural, societal, and political climate is also necessary to determine a solution to the rising shortage of organs." This strongly supports a framework of maximizing choice because it is noted that one must take into account a multitude of factors before deciding which system of organ donation to implement. This does not just apply to the United States, but to all societies. Looking at solvency alone, mandated choice or compulsory donation are likely to have the same (if not higher) amounts of organ donation, when compared to presumed consent. Again, look to my first contention where I specifically noted how unlikely it would be for presumed consent to raise rates of donation in countries like the USA, due to the value they place on autonomy. In order for pro's point to stand, he must show that presumed consent provides more *more* solvency than all of my counter plans.EconomyReally, this is simply an extension of pro's first point, so I'll cross apply what I said about solvency. However, I would like to briefly touch on the example of Spain. Simini explains, "In 1989 the Spanish government invested heavily in the organisational structure of organ donation. They radically increased the number of donor coordinators and ensured that every hospital in Spain had its own coordinator. They commenced a continuous BSD audit throughout Spain and invested heavily in education and advertising. In addition they introduced a fee structure to reimburse hospitals that provide organ donors (2)." Pro has provided a correlation with Spain and high donation rates, yet no causation. With all these other factors promoting high rates of organ donation, there is no way to be sure that specifically presumed consent raised the donation rate.EducationPro's point that a just society would communicate with the people about organ donation policies is completely irrelevant to this debate since it is non topical within the resolution. Also, look to the fact of providing for such education in virtually any society is going to cost a large amount. Certianly more than 200,000 euros, causing pro's point about the emonomy to be completely negated.FamilyHere, pro stresses the importance of a donor having the final say in whether or not their organs should be donated. This argument is highly nonunique to presumed consent because mandated choice solves for exactly the same thing.My CasePC can back firePro essentially drops my attacks on political conditions and explains that I have the burden to prove that my policies will not backfire. This is completely incorrect. Firstly, the resolution requires pro to defend presumed consent (and only presumed consent). Secondly, look to my framework of maximizing choice. Here I show that the success of a system depends on the needs and beliefs of a society. Obviously, compulsory donation is not going to work in *every* society; however, if it has potential to solve for problems in even one society, it should be seen as a viable counterplan. The same goes for all the potential plans I have provided. Most of his attacks on my contention pertain to my counterplans, so I'll get to these attacks below.Other choicesforced donationPro drops this point and makes the claim that a just society wouldn't take such a drastic measure. Firstly, look to the potential benefit such a plan can have on societies with a huge need for organs. While this counterplan is certainly drastic, it is 100% ensured to alleviate organ shortages.mandated choice Firstly, pro made a point earlier on explaining that people under an opt in system may *want* to donate, but often don't want to make an effort to let their wishes be known. Look to the fact that mandated choice completely solves for this. For further clarification, mandated choice is a system which requires individuals to make a choice as to whether or not they want their organs donated, eliminating conflict by eliminating the need to "presume" anything, and eliminating conflict by making the individuals decision to donate or not to donate final. Pro seems to be attempting to tell the reader what mandated choice is. Look to the fact that even if this plan I have provided was different from traditional mandated choice, that wouldn't matter because the con can propose literally anything besides presumed consent.Secondly, pro says absolutely nothing that suggests mandated choice could be ineffective. If we take his USA poll into account, there is no logical reason to believe that 76% of individuals would become organ donors under such a system. organ salesPro gives absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests such a plan would be *less* effective than presumed consent in eliminating a black market. Presumed consent is not guaranteed to raise donation rates. Even if it were, presumed consent could never eradicate a waiting list for organs. Thus, individuals with need for organs are apt to turn to the black market and pay for organs. A safe and legal manner of obtaining organs through money without a waiting list will cause such a market to disappear. My Iran example can be extended to show the success of such a plan. I will note that I think pro did, to a certain extent, misunderstand this plan. The legalization of organ sales pertains to living donors, as does the black market.Indeed the resolution has been negated.1. http://web.stanford.edu...2. Simini B. Tuscany doubles organ donation rates by following the Spanish example. Lancet. 2000;355:476