THBT Markets for Human Organs Should be Illegal Worldwide
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
People should not be able to sell their organs in any country through a legally sanctioned market, even as a personal decision.
This does not include a potential situation with agreeing to sell off your organs when you die.
Burden of proof is shared, no new arguments in the last round.
Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions. Examples of organs include the eyes, ears, heart, lungs, and liver. (https://www.medicinenet.com/organ/definition.htm)
Argument: Pro left a sour taste in this voter's mouth by provision of the first sourced reference, which was apparently from another debate on this site; however, the link failed, and so the citation of the apparent cost of living in India also failed. Separate reference revealed that the cost of living in India is not as Pro suggests; it is virtually half of the suggested $1,000 per month. However, the argument of cost of living, regardless of what it is in India, or anywhere else [Iran is reference also used by Pro] is irrelevant because persons are unable to make a continuous living on the basis of selling organs simply because with the exception of blood, hair, or skin [all of which are human tissue - which Pro incorrectly rejects, while Con successfully argued for their inclusion as human tissue] no organ is self-replenishing, and therefore, only one of even organs which typically exist in pairs, can be sold until the person dies if that person expects to be able to continue use of the other paired organ. Therefore, the argument of economic support for an organ-selling industry does not figure as a sustainable argument. Con successfully rebutted the point, by demonstration that even the selling of self-replenishable organs [blood and hair] provides a viable market of organ selling that is beneficial to those needing organ transplant. Points to Con.
Sources: As if the sour encounter of an inaccessible source link could be ignored, Pro's sources presented unsupportable arguments relative to poverty and market liquidity because of the failed arguments as noted above, and the use of sources, such as Iran, whose economy is not exactly robust in any market, let alone organ-selling. Pro's sources are simply not reliable. Con's sources, by contrast, such as the sourcing of hair and blood offering, while not personally beneficial for sustained personal cost of living concerns by themselves, do contribute to a person's cost of living needs. Points to Con
Conduct: Pro and Con had relatively equivalent conduct value until in R4, when Pro said, "Con's crux of his argument strongly supports my idea, therefore he has conceded this debate". A fair review of Con's arguments would suggest that in little regard do Con's arguments agree with Pro. Therefore, to suggest that Con has de facto conceded when Con offered no such concession, but rather continued argumentative and rebuttal language demonstrates that Con stayed active in debate in all four rounds. Point to Con.
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The allocation of the conduct point is not properly justified.
"To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct."
PRO making a rhetorical statement about CON de facto conceding is not an excessive breach in conduct.
The voter may revote if they fix this issue.
Working on this one next. Should be able to get something up sometime this coming week.
I think the fundamental assumption that organ donation can refer to anything that is independent from human body, rather than what Organ donation markets assume are organs (face tissue, kidney, lung, heart...)
Where's the kritik?
Umm I really don't mind you vote pro or con . But serious would you mind to point out some serious spelling mistake or grammatical mistake ?
Umm but the definition should be based on the description only if the description has marked it
I'll get a vote up on this at some stage. Haven't given it enough of a look to answer your question, seldiora.
Nope. I don't play that game. That is a done debate, and buried from my perspective, regardless of outcome. The differentiation of "organ" and "tissue" is somewhat tenuous. As an avid student of human anatomy and the medical profession [my father was a hospital administrator, my mother a medical transcriber, and my older brother is a physician], the linkage of organ and tissue is tight. While I would agree that hair, specifically, is not an organ, it is clearly tissue [living at the root, or follicle, and dead in the exposed length, regardless of length], both heart and skin are organs. Pro clearly dismissed hair as tissue while Con offered it as an example of donated/sold tissue, and skin was my reference; not offered by either Pro or Con.
In any case, I don't know why the linking to the India study failed. Here's the link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195344
what do you think? Did Undefeatable fail, because he didn't put in what the organ donation/transplant market meant? Or is the premise vague enough that we should accept con's definition? I'm on the fence here.
*facepalm* this is what happens when I listen to you and don't put "no kritiks".
are you getting revenge for your systemic racism debate? It seems to me pro used multiple different sites in conjunction to support the idea of what an "organ" is. Why do you accept that the blood and sperm can be the organ? That's confusing to me.
vote if you dare!