R2 are arguments and refutations R3 are refutations R4 are refutations R5 are conclusions I look forward to having a fruitful and entertaining debate with my opponent! I have'nt been on this site in like 8 months so this will be a good refresher. permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified 3.Since this round is only the acceptance round i will leave my questions for next round. Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Sources I will be bringing forth 3 contentions arguing for why organ donation should be made mandatory. Would you rather leave a kidney in an 83 year old man, or save the life of a 7 year old boy?Furthermore, I have no doubt that my opponent will raise the point of religious tolerance, and how religions such as Hinduism do not allow the body to be tampered before cremation. Because of how dangerous driving a motorcycle can be.Mandated choice or mandatory choice is an approach to public policy questions in which people are required by law to state in advance whether or not they are willing to engage in a particular action.The approach contrasts with "opt-in" and "opt-out" ("presumed consent") models of policy formation.
There is no problem with assisting the ill through the donation of organs, but there is a possible ethical dilemma in a "blank check" approach to how organs are used.In Texas, a similar switch doubled organ donors in less than a year (though Texas started from a base of just 2 percent – hey, it’s still a big state.) Over at Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok’s take on required choice “is mixed but I hope it works.” I see it as follows.The benefit is that if a potential donor has said yes to organ donation then next of kin almost always agree to their wishes so if more people positively affirm that is good.I understand that my opponent wants this to happen upon death witch will develop into a flaw but i will get to that later, but i will post the definition below. I thank my opponent for accepting my debate challenge. Curbs illegal activity First of all, before I even proceed on to my contentions, I would like to counter some of the arguments that I have no doubt my opponent will raise.However, I do not accept the changes in definition made by my opponent to the term "mandatory". This resolution could not be accepted if the person was still living as it can be considered murder, therefore to keep the debate fair the person must be dead before donating their organs. Firstly, the point that the body is your own body, nobody else. Why waste an organ that you won't need when you can save some body's life?