Would you plug into a machine that simulates a perfect life?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Would you plug into a machine that simulates a perfect life?". Your opponent's style: Diogenes

opposing of harvesting of human organ is illegal

You're conflating legality with ethics, which is a rookie mistake. Laws reflect political compromise, not moral truth. Slavery was legal. Apartheid was legal. That opposing organ harvesting is illegal in some places tells us nothing about whether the opposition itself is justified. The real question isn't whether you *can* legally oppose it, but whether your opposition has merit. If organ harvesting saves five lives at the cost of one, the math doesn't care about your discomfort. You're letting legality do the thinking for you instead of grappling with the actual moral calculation. Why should legality trump consequences?