The Instigator
AlwaysRight12345
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
DebateResponses
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Children should receive vaccinations.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
AlwaysRight12345
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 474 times Debate No: 79965
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

AlwaysRight12345

Pro

This debate is on children having mandatory vaccination with the exception of children who cannot receive it for reasons such as (but not excluding) allergies or religious reasons.

Definitions:
Child: A young human below the age of 18.
Vaccinate: treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate. [1]

Rules:
1. No trolling.
2. No outsourcing to other texts or images, except for sources.
3. Above are the terms and definitions that will be used throughout the entire debate.
4. Forfeiting one or two rounds is acceptable but will result in loss of conduct points. Forfeiting 3 or more rounds will result in a forfeit of the entire debate.
5. My opponent will provide his or her arguments in the end of round 1. For round 4, no new arguments or "ideas" are to be provided. The same goes for me in round 5. As for my opponent in round 5, I would prefer that he/she not forfeit but instead put something along the lines of "no arguments as agreed"

I look forward to an interesting debate!
DebateResponses

Con

I know I lost already... I just felt so bad that no one accepted, so I will try my best. Despite causation and correlation, I believe that vaccines shouldn't be given. The amount of autistic kids have increased, while the amount of vaccinations have also increased. Please read my comment (first one) which follows this argument.
Debate Round No. 1
AlwaysRight12345

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for joining this debate. I am mildly confused that you said nobody accepted because there was still almost a week on the clock before you joined. I am also mildly confused that you are citing an argument you made to your own comment which is contradicting what you are saying. Finally, I would like to apologize for accidentally sourcing one of my definitions in the first round. This was habitual and accidental.
Anyways, I am pleased to start this debate and will motor right along to my refutation of my opponent's argument and then will present my own.

Vaccinations cause autism:
My opponent's only argument so far is that getting vaccinations cause autism, because the number of autistic children has increased in relation to the number of vaccinations. He stated no sources for this. To stop any further appearances of this blatantly incorrect argument, I will source a couple of reputable sites that disprove this myth.

1. A meta-analysis spanning over 1.2 million children has confirmed that the MMR shot doesn't actually cause autism and may actually even decrease the risk. An epidemiologist parent of three children is cited in the document as saying that she approves of vaccinating your children. [1]
2. A detailed study based on studying the effects of vaccination of 95,272 children with older siblings. Older siblings with and without autism were both studied. The results proved that there is no correlation between vaccination and autism. [2]
3. Finally, even the US government CDC has decreed that vaccinations and autism have no association. They even verified that no ingredients in the government-approved vaccines (mainly the ingredient thimerosal) cause negative effects in clinically-approved amounts. [3]


Herd Immunity:
My first argument is on the concept of herd immunity. This is a general concept that means that when the few people who cannot receive vaccinations are not immune to the disease are protected by those who are. There is a specific amount of people who need to be vaccinated for each disease to work. Below is a graph that details the threshold (or percentage of people) needed for herd immunity to work. The R0 is the number of people one unvaccinanated person could infect in an unprotected population. The R0 goes up in relation to the threshold. This is important because you can see that for all these incredibly harmful diseases, a large percentage of children is needed to be vaccinated for the children who actually can't get the immunity that they need.This is a graph of thresholds needed for herd immunity by vaccination by disease.
[4]

Vaccinations Work
No matter what the radical and incorrect campaigners will tell you, vaccinations work and they save lives. To be precise, 5 million lives would've been taken every year from smallpox (which has now been eradicated) [5] A great example to prove this argument is the example of the California Disneyland Measles Outbreak. (This example also helps prove my first argument.) One overseas foreign traveler accidentally carried measles to Disneyland, an amusement park in California. The disease spread rapidly, spanning from California to all over the rest of the US. About 668 people were documented as having the virus because of this one foreign traveler. [6] Parents are killing their children by not providing them with the necessary vaccinations, and killing the children around them whose parents are responsible enough to provide them with the correct protection and those who cannot receive the vaccination because of the allergic reactions they have to the chemicals. The margins for each of these diseases are big enough to fit in these minute percentages of children who legitimately cannot receive proper protection, but not those with neglectful parents.

Well, this is what we'll start off the debate with. Sorry that the 5th link didn't register, you'll just have to copy/paste it if you want to see it. I would like to end this round with wishing the best of luck to my opponent.

Sources:
1: https://www.autismspeaks.org...
2: http://jama.jamanetwork.com...
3: http://www.cdc.gov...
4: http://www.pbs.org...
5: www.unicef.org/pon96/hevaccin.htm
6: http://www.cdc.gov...
DebateResponses

Con

DebateResponses forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AlwaysRight12345

Pro

See above.
DebateResponses

Con

Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.
Debate Round No. 3
AlwaysRight12345

Pro

To begin, I will remind my opponent that his/her next round will be their concluding round, in which they may not present any new information. This means that he/she can only weigh and crystallize arguments. My conclusion will be the first part of round 5, directly after my opponent's.

My Arguments:
My arguments have all been dropped by my opponent. This means that all my arguments have been accepted to be true.

Refutations:
Since my arguments have been accepted to be true, my opponent's incorrect and unproven assertions that vaccines are untrustworthy and harmful have been disproven by my arguments. I have proven that government-approved vaccinations work reliably, or as reliably as you can expect anything to. You can risk the slight risk of your child having an allergy and then have compensation from the government and protection from herd immunity. [1] This is obviously different from drinking orange juice from the grocery store, risk the slight chance of getting orange juice that is past expiration date, and then return it, get compensation from the grocery store, and get better orange juice. (Please infer sarcasm).

The best of luck to my opponent!
DebateResponses

Con

DebateResponses forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AlwaysRight12345

Pro

Conclusive Round:
The debate is practically over and I am clearly its victor. I will show you why I win on all accounts:
Arguments: All of my arguments have been dropped by my opponent and his only ones have been disproven.
Conduct: My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds, so there should be a definite win for me in conduct.
Spelling and Grammar: Nobody commited any errors in spelling or grammar.
Sources: I have produced many reliable sources, whereas my opponent has produced none.

I have definitely won this debate. For a crystillization of my arguments you can see my last entry.

I will end this debate with a thank you to everyone for this deabte!
DebateResponses

Con

DebateResponses forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DebateResponses 1 year ago
DebateResponses
No not at all.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I'm surprised to see you accept after saying it was impossible. Did my comment influence this? The comment was really meant as helpful advice to have pro citiz the terms of the debate. It wasn't intended to help con. I apologize if it did so
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
No, pro has not already won. Debate is about who makes the best arguments. The resolution implies every single vaccination, and not even all of them are FDA approved or safe. I could easily accept this and win, but it's just not worth the trouble.
Posted by DebateResponses 1 year ago
DebateResponses
@AlwaysRight12345 Won already... children need vaccinations. Without them, it causes a higher risk of disease, as well as spreading it to everyone else around you. Sorry contender, you lost, unless you want to be stupid and say that disease causes autism..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
AlwaysRight12345DebateResponsesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by lannan13 10 months ago
lannan13
AlwaysRight12345DebateResponsesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
AlwaysRight12345DebateResponsesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct, Pro; Con forfeited. S&G was irrelevant. Sources, Pro. Not only did Con lack sources, but Pro used reliable and credible sources like the CDC and UNICEF to support solid arguments. Pro had to show that children should receive vaccinations. Con's only two contentions were that 1) vaccines have increased and so has autism 2) some vaccines are untrustworthy/harmful to children. Pro clearly and definitively debunked the myths of vaccine-induced autism by citing the CDC's and the US government's decree that vaccines and autism have no association. Pro also showed, with a very clear chart, the amount of un-immunized people one infected person could infect if enough people, a number that was also provided, aren't vaccinated. This seals the deal on this argument, because using a credible source to show that inoculations have to be done on a large scale in order to protect the population from small pox or pertussis affirms a "should" for vaccinations for children. Arguments to Pro.