The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage orga

I will be rebutting my opponent's rebuttal and then give you the reasons to vote affirmative. First my opponent states my first point has no impact and doesn't prove that the black market will vanish. The problem with the status quo is that since so many people are need of organs and the average wait time for an organ can be up to 3 years, many dying patients go to the black market to get organs. The quality of these organs are almost always worse in quality as are the surgeries. This is a direct health risk to those patients and leads to a lot of death. Since the affirmative would drastically increase the organ supply and make organs easier to get, the patients wouldn't need to go to the black market. Though this isn't the biggest impact of the round, it must be considered that even the little things are improved by financial incentives. Also, he says my first subpoint is not relevant. My subpoint is one of the MOST important points of the debate. It shows why financial incentives are ethical and why they would have such a big impact on potential donors. Most donors are turned off by the disincentives mentioned earlier. The added costs and lost wages from donating discourages a lot of potential donors. Financial incentives should be seen as REIMBURSEMENT and the encouragement of new potential donors, not a sick materialistic gain. Since my opponent obviously had no answer to this critical point, do not listen to any attempt for him to answer this in his next speech. He dropped this point and should be weighed accordingly. Against my second economic subpoint, my opponent concedes that the economic gain would be "huge. " He states that the possible costs of such a system would be more expensive than the benefits. This is a good point and idea, but the facts actually contradict it. The University of Chicago found that, after analyzing the costs and benefits of the system, for every 500 organs gained through this system, it would be a total gain of $30 million for our government due to less money spent on dialysis and other medical costs. My opponent doesn't really address the point but simply expresses doubt. I have just proved what he said I couldn't with evidence. He has provided no contradictory evidence so mine must be weighed throughout the round. His response to my third argument is contradictory to his case. He says my argument is "empathetical" and not "logical," but his whole case is an appeal to empathy. What my point is saying is that the lowered cost of organs would help the poor, as well as the added financial incentives would help the poor as well. He states we would pay higher taxes, which simply makes no sense and has no evidential backing. The "larger scale" is all the lives that would be saved and would be made better through such a system. His fourth response simply states that I never proved an increase of organs. All of my statistics have obviously fallen on deaf ears. My National Institute of Health evidence stated that 54% of donors would be more likely to donate and the ASAIO journal predicted the organ supply would TRIPLE. He has only one contradictory source from 1992. I win on recency, more credible evidence, and more evidence. Why you should vote AFF: I have simply overrun my opponent with logic and evidence. Even though my opponent makes good arguments, they are mostly centered around a "organ market. " Since I proved that an organ market would not arise from financial incentives, you cannot vote neg. I have won on impacts as well. I proved it would reduce black market, which would save lives. He dropped my donor benefit point, and essentially dropped my economic point in general. He has not responded to my lives point, and he has not had any counter evidence to prove his points. You vote AFF because it saves lives and saves money. Even if you vote all of my opponent's points through, which you don't because I have responded to all of them and proved all of them wrong, his impacts simply do not outweigh mine. If you want to save lives and money, you must affirm.